Putin and the Christian Nationalists.


Today’s Pilot ran this editorial by the dean and professor of psychology and religion at Union Theological Seminary. I posted it because it sheds some light on why Putin, and Trump for that matter, have so many apologists and supporters in the US and the West.

45 thoughts on “Putin and the Christian Nationalists.

  1. Oh, baloney. This piece describes such a small fraction of the US it isn’t funny. For it to say that so many people at least somewhat agree with some of the nationalists ideals is spacious at best, so what? So we agree carrots are orange and good for you. I’m sure CPUSA, which is more left wing, loves him too. The story explains nor associates squat.


  2. “This piece describes such a small fraction of the US it isn’t funny.”

    If your statement is true, then what explains so much Evangelical Christian support for a person with the low character, the obvious moral deficits, the intellect, and the divisive messaging of Donald Trump? This is a serious question which you should try thinking about.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Perhaps the answer simply lies in the fact they despise socialists and left wing destruction of a moral compass and common decency they find completely unacceptable. Think about your side first.


    2. Evangelical support for Trump is much easier to understand than that.

      From their point of view, Trump is a redeemable sinner whose heart is in the right place, and Hillary was baby murdering Satan.


      1. I will not try to argue with you about what fantasies and demons that drive Evangelical “Christians” into the arms of the most unGodly (and irredeemable) person to ever rise to this level of politics. Of course, these are people who shovel money in the direction of TV charlatans by the billions, so why would they be immune to Trump’s schtick? Obviously, they are not.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “And you stand by both of those assertions personallY?”

          He does not need to. As bizarre as it sounds, he has accurately expressed the level of sheer idiocy that is rampant in the circles of Trump-supporting deplorables.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I do believe that Hillary’s abortion on demand at any point is the murder of babies after 4 1/2 months but I do not believe in Satan, Se is not a fallen angel, just an exceptionally evil person.


          2. Yet TFG can call for enemies of our country to help him politically, or blackmail allies for similar reasons. But HE is redeemable? Bourbon out the nose hysterical.


          3. “I do believe that Hillary’s abortion on demand at any point is the murder of babies”

            Absolutely laughable bullshit.

            Hillary Clinton supports Roe v. Wade. Period. Roe v. Wade supports abortion on demand ONLY before viability is reached and that is even earlier than the 4.5 months that you just declared to be your personal cut-off.

            Ms. Clinton does NOT support “abortion on demand at any point.” That is a complete FALSEHOOD. So, you are either a LIAR or a FOOL who parrots easily identified LIES. Take your pick. I am no longer sure which it is.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “Viability of a fetus is about 24 weeks, or just under 6 months.”

            If you say so, but Roe v Wade distinguishes between the first, second and third trimester as far as what states may regulate. Abortion on demand is limited to the first trimester. So, your criterion IS looser than Roe v Wade by a considerable amount. Which is fine by me.

            But what has that got to do with your spreading ugly LIES about Hillary Clinton? Will we ever see I time when you just say – “Sorry, I was dead wrong?” I doubt it.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Hillary Clinton voted against restrictions on late term abortions when she was in the Senate and has repeatedly expressed support of abortions well beyond Roe V Wade.


            My problem with Roe v Wade is not how it was decided but that it WAS decided. This was a matter that should have been settled in the legislative branch.


          6. Here is a comprehensive look at the realities of abortion from a Kaiser site.


            Abortion regulations need to be federal. If Roe is pitched, we are going to return to the days where low income women and families will be scouring for illegal local abortions while the higher income families just go to states that allow abortion.

            The terrible irony is that poor families have the least resources for added, unwanted or seriously defected children needing a lifetime of medical care.

            The “morning after” and even regular birth control are at risk since they are abortifacients according to many if not most of the anti-abortion folks.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. “Hillary Clinton voted against restrictions on late term abortions”

            Yes, she did. She took a principled vote on a stupid piece of gotcha legislation knowing full well that lying liars would use it against her. That is what integrity looks like.

            Such late term abortions are NEVER on demand. There was no need for such a federal law and it could only do harm. Every state has laws protecting the child in late term. The only time these late abortions happen is when a tragedy has already occurred, putting the mother at serious risk. Late discovery of anencephaly is one such tragedy.

            You stated as a fact that Hillary stands for “abortion on demand at any point.” She has never favored anything like that. That is still a LIE. That vote on a bad bill that was not about “abortion on demand” does not change that it is a LIE. As expected, you just can’t bring yourself to tell the truth. Instead, you change the subject to why you don’t like Roe v. Wade. Sad.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “You brought up Roe”

            I did indeed. It was in response to the LIES that slip so easily and glibly from your lips when you slander Democrats. In this case, Hillary Clinton has NEVER supported abortion on “demand at any point.” But the subject wasn’t Roe. The subject was your LYING again. You can call Ms. Clinton “exceptionally evil.” You are entitled to your opinions no matter how laughable. But you do not get your own facts. Spreading LIES is uncivil. You should stop.

            As for your objection to how Roe came to be the law of the land, I suggest we put YOUR basic human rights up for a vote in the legislature. You constantly whine about the tyranny of the majority but are more than willing to unleash it on women.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Perhaps Rev. Cooper-White develops her psychological profile of Christian nationalists with empirical case studies in her upcoming book. I’m extremely skeptical of the profile she offers in The Pilot.

    For example, she writes, “Shockingly, roughly 80% of white evangelicals and half of all Americans agree at least to some degree with Christian nationalist views, according to sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry.” Those words convey the view that a large number of people harbor some kind of “wrong think.” But she’s not really specific about the “wrong think” she accuses these people of having, or how it was determined that they are “wrong thinkers,” or even that any of them had ever met a Christian nationalist.

    It might be that Christian nationalists have ideas that lots of people believe because the ideas themselves have merit, but Cooper-White runs right past that possibility in order to point an accusing finger at the scapegoat she deplores.

    I sense that the Rev. is decidedly unchristian, although it is also possible that The Pilot is playing Shirley Jackson (“The Lottery”) with this material.

    A few days ago, Pope Francis consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Does that make all Catholics apologists for Putin or a far-right danger to America?


    1. Pope Francis . . .

      Your attempt at an argument based on the prayers of Pope Francis could not be more lame. Here is his actual prayer. . .

      “Mother of God and our Mother, to your Immaculate Heart we solemnly entrust and consecrate ourselves, the Church and all humanity, especially Russia and Ukraine.”

      He is clearly praying for the people of the two nations at war. NOBODY is going to conclude from that prayer that “all Catholics are apologists for Putin or a far-right danger to America.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “NOBODY is going to conclude from that prayer that “all Catholics are apologists for Putin or a far-right danger to America.'”

        That’s precisely the point, isn’t it?


        1. Uh, not exactly.

          You are trying to compare Pope Francis praying for both sides with “Christian Nationalists” rooting for Russia lead by a fascist dictator. And, to make your point, you distorted what Pope Francis did leaving out that he prayed for BOTH belligerents and not just Russia.

          That is why it was a lame argument.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “How so? What do you think being a Christian means?”

        I can’t pretend to know what being a Christian means. I’d say, though, that finger pointing and scapegoating a whole class of people for dubious reasons violates a number of Christian ideals such as the Golden Rule and not being the one to cast the first stone.


        1. Maybe this will give you an idea of the kind of Christianity the Reverend is referring to wrt to our own Christian Nationalists of today. I could be wrong, but first glance led me to the possibility.


          It appears to be a bastardization of what most understand to be Christian. Also POSSIBLY similar to how Putin views his Christianity.

          Just something to consider in the realm of this discussion.

          And by the way, your comment …”that finger pointing and scapegoating a whole class of people for dubious reasons”…(otherness) is something a lot of the leaders referred to in the linked opinion like to do. And Rev. Cooper-White makes that argument

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “…scapegoating a whole class of people for dubious reasons…”

          Meadows said it was a battle between good and evil. Pretty broad brush since his “evil” is well over 1/2 the nation.

          Is that the scapegoating you are referring too…or should be referring to?

          Liked by 2 people

        3. As I wrote: It might be that Christian nationalists have ideas that lots of people believe because the ideas themselves have merit, but Cooper-White runs right past that possibility in order to point an accusing finger at the scapegoat she deplores.

          I suggest you pick an idea you consider to be evil and explain why it is so.


  4. “I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.“

    C.S. Lewis


    Note he is referring to a small “d” democrat as in political power vested in the people, not theocrats and strongmen.

    Evangelical support for Trump is not vested in the support of democracy but rather God’s will. What is curious is that God’s will in determining the outcomes of elections is only acceptable if the winner was Trump. Cannot God have willed Biden and the religious right be either mistaken or blasphemous? Or do they have an inside track to the deity? If so, is political debate impossible because outcomes are somehow either predetermined by God or wrong? And how could they be wrong if God’s work is visible after the elections.

    Paraphrasing Lincoln, is it praying for God to be on our side or praying that we are on God’s side?

    I think it is much better to have a strictly secular political structure with religious tolerance than a sectarian government with political tolerance.


    Liked by 2 people

    1. I have a better quote, “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.”– Benjamin Martin(fictional, THE PATRIOT)

      But quotes sound usually good


      1. Elected legislatures can be “unelected”, tyrants can’t be easily deposed. And if they are, they are replaced by another tyrant.

        Without elections, regime change is usually by violence. As a United States under the Constitution, the attempt to effect a regime change without or in lieu of elections has resulted in violence just once.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The quote, though fictional. is characteristic of the concerns of the Framers of the Constitution regarding the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is largely constructed to limit that danger.

          That’s why I am picky about redefining the the meaning of the words.


          1. “That’s why I am picky about redefining the meaning of the words.”

            Words like “well-regulated militia?” Yeah, right. You are a real purist. I am out of roses, or I would pin one on you.

            The tyranny of the majority is a bad thing. Limiting its scope within a Constitutional framework is a good thing. Which is why violent assaults on our Constitutional order by you people is a bad thing.

            And, as bad as it is, the “tyranny of the majority” is to be preferred to the “tyranny of the minority” which has been our experience throughout history. That tyranny is the reason that ours is the most backward of any advanced democracy by countless measures of well-being, liberty, and opportunity.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Evangelical support for Trump is not vested in the support of democracy but rather God’s will.”

      Does this bother you?

      I can’t imagine why it should.


        1. Well sure. Just like He sends cancer, dead children, floods, famine, war, pestilence, Obamacare. Evil of every kind. He cannot take the faith of the faithful for granted and constantly has to test it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That would be Trump, the golfing Beelzebub*.

            *Beezlebub is a powerful demon who holds a high seat in Hell’s hierarchy. He is known for spreading belief in false gods, fanning the flames of war or lust, and possessing human bodies to carry out horrific acts.
            “Beezlebub has an assortment of magical powers. His specialty seems to be possession. In the early days, he liked to embody golden idols, making them seem as if they had powers so that people would worship them. Later, he began possessing human beings.”


            Trump loyalists fit the bill of the minions as described.😇


            Liked by 2 people

      1. “I can’t imagine why it should.”

        Uh, that would be because NOBODY knows what “God’s will” is. And, throughout history and still today people pretend that they do and – By Jesus – God’s will is EXACTLY what THEY want. Whether it be slavery, genocide, for-profit healthcare, tax cuts – God is always for it.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s