General SCOTUS stuff

I’ll stump for another book on the subject, Jesus and John Wayne by Kristen Kolb DuMetz, a professor at Calvin College.

When someone says ‘Jesus and John Wayne’, this is all I got.

One thing I’ve noted from talking with non right wing evangelicals, is that the ones I’ve talked don’t tend to be very involved in politics at all. They kind of look at politics as being less important, and interestingly to me, separate from their focus despite them obviously living in secular society.

The attitude I’ve gathered from them, is that while they may believe that certain things are wrong, they don’t believe that such things should be legislated by secular law.

For them, while sin is wrong, part of the while deal is that you are supposed to choose for yourself to walk the correct path. It’s not something that is supposed to be forced upon you. Forgiving and loving your fellow man, and not judging him for his sins, is a big part of Christianity. Some Christians embrace that aspect more.

They still evangelize for Christianity, but it’s more about telling people what God wants, and how He loves them, and less about trying to force people to do what they think God wants them to do. In a lot of ways, that kind of authoritarian take is inherently un-Christian to them.

Those folks aren’t Democrats in what I’ve seen, they are just non partisan, in that secular law is kind of immaterial to them. You are supposed to do what God wants, regardless of what secular law says. Indeed, if secular law forces you to do those things, it kind of misses the point, because it eliminates the choice to follow God, and thus taints the act.

Heh, well in this case it’s an academic investigation into the cultural undertones of evangelicalism and masculinity, and how their cultural precepts led to preference for certain behaviors. And how their archetypal view of masculinity, short handed as the John Wayne type, was co-opted and subsumed under the conservative political project, and how this has led to the two way influence and merging of those two spheres.

Basically how Evangelical chauvinism and idealization of the John Wayne archetypes combined with political capture and led to evangelicals worshiping Trump, a man who in a more consistent world, they would abhor.

It’s the best treatment on the political capture of evangelicalism I’ve seen.

I struggle to think of any example in the Bible where God expected those who weren’t God’s people(Jews were his people in the OT, then that expands to believers with the NT) to obey the religious laws. The people who are to be called out for their sinful ways are those who are God’s people, not the outsiders. Much of the modern Evangelical movement seems to think it’s exactly the opposite despite it being a pretty clear thing throughout the Bible.

Somewhat related was this video I watched the other day:

TLDW: Forcing people to go through the motions isn’t Saving anyone and it shows that you don’t really believe in the Gospel. You’re not changing Hearts, you’re forcing actions. In a way taking the easy way out with threat of violence.

Do they vote for Trump? What kinds of things would secular law force them to do that God doesn’t want? Get abortions? Not pray in public schools? I can’t even think of any examples.

Provide services to LGTBQ folks is the only obvious example.

They don’t vote for anyone.

I think you misunderstood what I was talking about there. It was talking about secular law, for instance, outlawing abortions or other things which they considered bad. Having secular law prohibit sin is kind of missing the point.

This sort of thing is way overdue.

Special counsels are unconstitutional. Or will be soon.

Better move fast, then!

Be on the lookout for a special Supreme Court ruling that SC justices’ official duties cannot be challenged, and that anything a justice does while they are breathing falls under the category of ‘official.’

So, you’re saying a pillow over the face is a Constitutional method of investigating?

Just so long as you don’t ask about the motivation of the pillow, I think you’re gonna be alright

I’m sure there’s no problem.

Holy click bait. Putin’s hometown? St. Petersburg. Year? 2003. Come on. I don’t like the guy, his ethics are atrocious, his jurisprudence is disgraceful, but this framing is some straight up bullshit.

I guess sticking to the tax fraud story which is quite damning wasn’t juicy enough.

Sounds like there’s no problem!

Is it too late to object? I’m worried about more in the article than that one little bit in the title.