During the ridiculous controversy over flags flying at the house of Justice Samuel Alito, the media and the left went into vapors over the inclusion of the “Free Pine” flag” or “Appeal to Heaven” flag — a flag with origins in the American Revolution. As I wrote at the time, this flag is neither racist nor extremist. Now, the controversy is back after a USA Today article by congressional reporter Zach Schermele, who wrote about how the “controversial Christian nationalist flag is hanging outside the D.C. office of a top Education Department official.”
The article goes on to note that:
“The flag, which was raised by rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection… is adorning the office of Murray Bessette, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
The “Appeal to Heaven” flag is the same that was flown outside the vacation home of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2023, according to the NYT.”
To make matters worse for many, Schermele links to Wikipedia, which is not generally used by the media as a reliable source and has been criticized for the liberal bias of its editors, including by one of its founders.
The fact that different groups have carried the flag does not change the flag’s history or meaning. The rioters on January 6th also carried American flags, including “Don’t Tread on Me” and other colonial flags. They are symbols of our revolutionary struggle.
As I previously noted, the Pine Tree flag was commissioned by George Washington. The phrase “an appeal to heaven” comes from John Locke’s Second Treatise.
In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I explore the foundations of the American Revolution on its 250th anniversary, including the influence of Locke on the framers. The book discusses how one barrier to revolution was the view that citizens could not revolt against a King and owed him a sacred pledge of fealty. This was reinforced by references to biblical provisions such as Romans 13, where Paul the Apostle reminds Christians to obey civil authorities and be loyal subjects.
That view was shattered by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, in his famous sermon “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers” on January 30, 1750, from the pulpit of Boston’s Old West Church. Mayhew explained how such claims amounted to virtual blasphemy and that, when a sovereign denied natural rights bestowed upon citizens, they were not defending but defying the will of God by resisting.
Before Mayhew, however, Locke had articulated the same principle in discussing breakdowns in governance where citizens face power “about to enslave, or destroy them.” In such circumstances, they may justify their actions not with an appeal to their oppressors, but to the source of their natural rights: the Almighty. In writing about the right to revolution, Locke wrote the following in his Second Treatise:
“The People have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven. For the Rulers, in such attempts, exercising a Power the People never put into their hands (who can never be supposed to consent, that any body should rule over them for their harm) do that, which they have not a right to do. And where the Body of the People, or any single Man, is deprived of their Right, or is under the Exercise of a power without right, and have no Appeal on Earth, there they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven, whenever they judge the Cause of sufficient moment.”
Locke goes on to write that the ultimate source of rights rested with God, not the government or “positive laws” created by the government:
“… they have, by a Law antecedent and paramount to all positive Laws of men, reserv’d that ultimate Determination to themselves, which belongs to all Mankind, where there lies no Appeal on Earth, viz. to judge whether they have just Cause to make their Appeal to Heaven. And this Judgment they cannot part with, it being out of a Man’s power so to submit himself to another, as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and Nature never allowing a Man so to abandon himself, as to neglect his own preservation: And since he cannot take away his own Life, neither can he give another power to take it.”
Locke’s hold on the Framers was evident throughout the Declaration, early writings, and, of course, the Appeal to Heaven flag.
It is not a “Christian nationalist” symbol. Ironically, it is a symbol that shows that natural rights transcend any national government. Natural rights are recognized by other religions. They can also be embraced by the non-religious as human rights that cannot be denied by any government. Locke is considered one of the most important writers of the Enlightenment.
If nationalist is meant to refer to the pride and identification as Americans, the flag is certainly that and legitimately so. It is an American creation and ties us to our common article of faith in natural rights.
The Pine Tree or Appeal to Heaven flag has flown throughout our history, even outside government buildings in San Francisco (hardly a bastion of Christian nationalism). It reflects a core principle of our unique revolution: that our rights preceded government and belong to us as human beings.
The controversy over this article notably follows a similar kerfuffle caused by Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.), who denounced a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. Kaine even called those who believed in such a basis for government as akin to Islamic terrorists. To do so was to effectively lump Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini.
Kaine was upset after a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.
Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, had said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”
It is a line virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary. Yet, the line set off Kaine, who furiously labeled Barnes as an extremist:
“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”
After a torrent of criticism, Kaine later backpedaled on his attack on claims of natural rights.
Underlying both controversies is a modern resistance to the notion of natural rights as bestowed by God on all of humanity, rights that preexist any government. The “appeal to heaven” is a call for the protection of those rights that belong to all human beings as part of being fully human. Ours was the first true revolution of the Enlightenment based on those very natural rights. That is why this flag should be flown proudly by all Americans as the embodiment of the values that laid the foundation of this Republic.
Professor Turley,
Here is an example of an article where you acknowledge that a flag’s meaning can be repurposed: https://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/28/new-jersey-student-suspended-for-confederate-flag-on-truck/comment-page-1/
You note that the Confederate Flag’s original meaning was repurposed by Lee as a symbol for Southern Pride.
How can you then write this article, claiming that this flag’s meaning if forever tied to its historical origins?!
What. A. Hypocrite. Ridiculous. Please take down this awful article.
I’d argue a symbol is permanently tied to its origin and every other use of it. Meaning accumulates; it doesn’t erase itself. What matters in any given moment is the purpose for which the symbol is being used.
That’s ridiculous. A symbol is just a form of language. Languages evolve, which is why words are often removed from the English dictionary.
For example, the word “gooseberry” used to mean an “indulgent chaperone” in British English (in addition to the fruit). But the word lost this other meaning, and dictionaries (like Webster’s) have thus removed this meaning.
Other words, like Vitamin G are now obsolete as they are replaced with new words (in this case, Riboflavin).
That analogy actually proves my point, not yours. Words and symbols don’t lose meaning because someone decides they should. They lose meaning when usage genuinely disappears across time and context. “Gooseberry” didn’t stop meaning an indulgent chaperone because a controversial group used it. It faded because people stopped using it at all in that sense.
That’s not what’s happening here. The Appeal to Heaven flag hasn’t fallen out of use or been replaced. Its historical meaning hasn’t vanished; it’s being actively invoked for that meaning today. Adding a new association does not delete prior ones. Language and symbols are cumulative, not zero-sum.
What you’re really arguing is not evolution, but expropriation: that a loud or objectionable group can overwrite meaning for everyone else by association alone. That’s not how language evolves, and it’s certainly not how interpretation works. Otherwise, every word, symbol, or flag could be deliberately captured and rendered unusable by extremists—and that would be linguistic nihilism, not evolution.
So freedom of speech means one may burn the American flag, while simultaneously meaning that one may not display a flag that represents regional history.
That sure seems like some kind of weird “freedom,” which, incidentally, is absolute by definition.
Alito flew the flag over Long Island, far from the region it represented. Alito also flew an inverted American flag at his Virginia home.
Of the flag:
====
The Appeal to Heaven organization, opens new tab says on its website that the flag, which shows a white pine tree under the slogan, was flown by order of George Washington in October 1775.
The organization says that it “exists to honor the Lord by networking elected officials who are believers in Jesus Christ, who regularly attend and display a commitment to an evangelical, Gospel-centered church and who will commit to live and govern based on biblical, constitutional and Federalist principles.”
====
That is called theocracy, when the Bible comes first, as it doesn’t have principles of government.
The pine tree flag is not being used for its original purpose. That purpose died long ago. It’s new purpose is as a dog whistle to the in-group of White Nationalists, much the same way as the White Nationalists had to replace the N-word with “thug” or “urban.”
For example, the historic use of the flag was:
====
The phrase “appeal to heaven” appears in John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, where it is used to describe the right of revolution.
It is also used by liberty activists and enthusiasts of the American Revolution to commemorate the Pine Tree Riot, one of the first acts of resistance by the American colonists to British royal authority eventually culminating in the American Revolution.
====
Tell me, is the Revolution against the British royal authority still on-going? Are they calling for open riot (aside from forcing their way past the Capitol police, including battery, and property destruction, theft, and menacing the members of the House in an effort to allow room to introduce falsified lists of electors) ?
This has been stolen the way the swastika was stolen by Nazis and for similar purposes. Telling the general public that it is just a historical flag flown by history buffs while signalling to others in the group their intent to screw the racial minorities again.
A symbol iss not permanently tied to any meaning. But its past use is permanently what it meant at that use.
The left has succeeded in making the confederate flag into SOLELY a symbol of racism.
But that does not make the Dukes of Hazzard’s the General into a symbol of racism.
It is generally a bad idea to unmore symbols from their historical meaning.
And this is a perfect example.
Our Founders were absolutely positively NOT fighting for christian nationalism.
Change the meaning of the pine tree flag and you will confuse anyone studying the past.
The left frequently does that intentionally
John Say,
“ The left has succeeded in making the confederate flag into SOLELY a symbol of racism.”
Huh, wrong. The left had nothing to do with that. It is the racist bigots using the confederate flag as their symbol. Their yearning for those “simpler” days when you could own slaves in peace. Your attempt to blame everything on the left is almost a reflex.
White Supremacists and Christian Nationalists changed the meaning of that flag the moment they chose it as theirs. That’s just basic reality.
The name of the vehicle was “The General Lee” and, just like the namesake, the show’s production destroyed the majority of them, over 300 in all.
The term is “unmoor” and it’s not a “bad idea,” but a reality that this flag indicated resilience against the British monarchy. Is America still at war to end the relationship as a British colony? I can see, maybe, it being flown over the Pine Tree state of Maine, but somehow it appeared in the hands of those not from Maine on the steps of a besieged Capitol building.
It’s funny that the Christian Nationalists cannot even create their own flag, but cower behind that of another time and cause.
The founders were, in large part, fighting to maintain chattel slavery when the Britain was increasingly moving away from it. It was illegal to keep someone as a slave from 1772 in England and 1778 in Scotland – but even before then, it was still technically illegal just no one had taken it to court. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
Try “phone a friend” to improve your spelling and grammar skills.
If that origin is not recalled by those using it, then that is no longer permanent, is it?
ATS this is not hypocracy at all.
This is an excellent article and you are obviously stupid.
All words are symbles and they can be redefined, and constantly are.
But there is a world of difference between the definition of something being set and changed by those who use that symbol for that meaning, and being redefined by outsiders for the purpose of controlling expression.
Sometimes the latter is successful.
Further the article you linked does NOT claim what you claim it does.
From its First appearance the confederate flag was a symbol of Southern pride and independence – just as the variosu colonial flags were signed of American pride and independence.
While Slavery was the issue which the South was unwilling to cede state control over, the principle fought over was the extent of a states rights within the union.
To blacks particularly after the war, particularly decades after the war, the Confederate flag became FOR THEM a symbol of not just slavery but Jim Crow, Racism, white supremecy. While for others it was a symbol of southern pride and for still moore it was a symbol of rebellion – particularly youthful rebellion. Some parts of that are addressed int he article you link.
Symbols can mean different things to different people.
To the extent Turley is wrong in the current article – it would be that the Pine tree flag is a symbol of the fears of those on the left of Christian nationalism for those on the left.
That does not mean that is the meaning for the rest of us.
And this is one of the problems with those on the left – They not only beleive that THEIR chosen meaning for something is the only meaning.
But that is it what others who use a symbol mean, and that they have the right to dictate what all words and symbols means to all of us.
That is quite litterally 1984 NewSpeak. it is the destruction of language – or more accurately the destruction of communications for the purpose of controlling thought.
Most humans think in words. You will always find that more advanced societies have more complex languages – that enables them to communicate better AND to think better. It is often said that the Eskimos have 20 different words for snow. Snow is very important to them and communicating precisely could be the difference between life and death.
Regardless the standard of living of a country strongly equates to the richness of the language it has.
Because both communication and thinking are limited by language.
One of the themes of 1984 is that you can control peoples thoughts by controlling their words.
Mostly the left has won the battle over the meaning of the Confederate flag.
But only partially.
You have made it impossible for kids to drive arround with confederate flags in their pickups as a James Dean type symbol fo youthful rebellion.
The only symbols of youthful rebellion allowed by the left are things like Coolaide hair and nose rings. And even those are practically conformist.
Today youthful rebellion would be wearing a Suit to school or college.
Regardles syou have successfully made TODAYS use of the confederate flag into a symbol of racism – or such potent rebellion that you are not affraid of being called a racist.
But whatever you try to do to a symbol today – the Confderate flag on the General in the Dukes of Hazzard has not changed its meaning.
Mostly it is a symbol of the lefts supression of symbols they do not like and redefinging their meaning.
You want to rant about the Pine Tree flag.
Prof Turley does an excellentjob of providing the history of the flag.
That history is extremely important – becuase it is also a refluction of the core principles that the flag symbolizes.
Turley notes the concept of natural rights independent of Government – a concept that ATLEAST dates back to the Magna Carte.
But which became dominant in the US at the time of the revolution.
The Pine Tree flag is a symbol intended to COMMUNICATE efficiently that ideology that meaning those principles – instantly.
Those of you on the left can rant about “god given rights”. If it makes you feel better – they can be merely “natural rights”
Regardless understanding the core issue is Trivial – if all rights come from govenrment – then slavery is moral. PERIOD.
Turley touched on this in his article – but the POINT is that even if we can not agree on precisely what is and what is not a natural right – so long as you agree that some things – like Slavery or Genocide are ALWAYS wrong – you have ceded that there is such a thing as a right that does not come from law or govenrment – but that government and law are obligated to protect.
At Nuremberg people were tried for “crimes against humanity” None of those were crimes that the Nazi Govenrment recognized – yet Nazi’s were prosecuted for acts that were lawful in Germany at the time they did them.
Natural rights preceed government. They exist independently of govenrment and government is obligated to protect them.
The Appeal to heaven flag is a symbol that when a nation is abusing the natural rights of its people – that government is no longer legitimate.
Our founders wrote of an appeal to heaven. But they also engaged in an “appeal to arms”
The Pine Tree flag asks god to intervene when inalienable rights are being infringed.
The declaration of independence while founding Rights in god, justifies armed revolution in response to infringing on ones rights.
Eitehr way – the rights come BEFORE nations.
The purpose of the flag is to communicate that efficiently.
Just because you intentionally chose to apply a different and contradictory meaning does not change its meaning.
But overtime – for good or evil you might succeed in changing its meaning.
But you can not change its past meaning.
And if you choke off the ability to communicate that meaning efficiently int he future – then YOU are a tyrant.
Right out of 1984
” the confederate flag was a symbol of Southern pride and independence”
It was not used after the defeat of the Confederacy until the Civil Rights movement gained traction. It was, like lynching, a symbol to Black Americans that White people controlled their existence, similar in reason for the sudden rise of Confederate memorials 40 years or more after the Confederacy lost. The losers put up racist reminders that their parents and grandparents had owned, bought, sold, lashed, and crippled Black Americans as part of forced labor camps. At the time it was a reminder that a White man could murder a Black man or woman or child and be exonerated by his peers (White only jurors) on the grounds of “back talk.”
DUTCH SHEETS! It’s as if Turley does zero research before writing these articles.
Who thinks that Turley has any idea who Sheets is and what the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) profess?
DUTCH SHEETS! It’s as if Turley does zero research before writing these articles.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan and Obama and their other constituents! It’s as if this commie Democrat believes the Internet and human memory forget before they attempt their Critical Black Democrat Racist Nationalism Theory???
Anyone believe this “Dutch Sheets” and his faction have more politicians within their ranks (never mind name recognition) than the black Democrat racists belonging to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan? Those Democrat racist black men of God have the entire Congressional Black Caucus eating out of the palm of their hands. Right there beside Obama.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Leonard Leo – the right wing version of Soros – flew the same flag outside his home. I guarantee you Leo has more ties to GOP politicians than anything you listed above.
Many of Leo’s initiatives align with NAR’s vision of a christian nationalist society. For example:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/29/oklahoma-public-christian-schools-00132534
I guarantee you Leo has more ties to GOP politicians than anything you listed above.
Ooooohhhh!!!! Politico!!! Those truth tellers who spent YEARS assuring you that the fictional and felonious Clinton/Obama “Trump-Russia Dossier” was 100% verified intelligence agency evidence! 100% straight out facts-only journalism. No opinion writing there – and especially not in the link that you referenced. Certainly not from the “veteran White House political reporter” Heidi Przybyla.
Same Heidi Przybyla who watched four years of Biden in the White House and joined the rest of the impartial political reporters who assured you The Oval Office House Plant was not only mentally competent – but so much so that he was working his brilliant young staffers to the point of exhaustion trying to keep up with him in the Oval Office.
Okay then! That level of credibility did it along with the credibility you bring by aligning yourself with Politico and the ever-impartial Heidi Przybyla: I’m now sold on your story!
I think that guarantee of yours is pretty feeble given that most people here had no idea of who Sheets – or Leonard Leo – are. Particularly when compared to the machinations of George Soros, or the pull of Jeremiah Wright with the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama.
if you don’t know who Sheets is, read up on him before responding with non-sequiturs
if you don’t know who Sheets is, read up on him before responding with non-sequiturs
That’s a pathetic excuse for a rebuttal, Skippy. Mangina suddenly hurt because it was so easy to point out your blatant hypocrisy and selective standards?
I am not sure you know what hypocrisy means.
I am not sure you know what hypocrisy means.
I am truly puzzled if you have some sort of inner belief that you have the credibility here to get away with your deflection, hypocrisy and Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Me, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™.
After all, this is not the Affirming Communist Care Blog that belongs to Rachael Maddow.
Turley,
Based on the above, would you feel similarly about someone labeling the old “don’t tread on me” Tea Party flag as a symbol of the 2009 era Tea Party movement because it was originally the old Gadsden flag?
What about the repurposing of the Confederate flag as a symbol of “Southern Pride”?
The “Come and take it” Texas Revolution flag being low used as a symbol of the Open Carry movement in TX?
The Swastika flag was an Indian flag that was repurposed for the Nazis. Must it only be associated with India despite its use in 20th C Nazi Germany?
Of course not. Flags are repurposed all the time. What absolute drivel to suggest that a flag must be tied to its origins!!
The real question isn’t whether symbols get repurposed, but what purpose they’re being invoked to serve. Symbols don’t have intent; people do. Context and continuity of meaning matter far more than sarcasm about origins.
Olly,
I agree with you! Apparently Turley does not:
“The fact that different groups have carried the flag does not change the flag’s history or meaning. The rioters on January 6th also carried American flags, including “Don’t Tread on Me” and other colonial flags. They are symbols of our revolutionary struggle.”
Different groups can absolutely change the flag’s meaning. In your words, that would change the “purpose they’re being invoked to serve.”
Turley apparently thinks a symbol’s purpose is set in stone and cannot have a new meaning. This is a patently ridiculous idea. Do you agree?
I read Turley as saying that later usage doesn’t retroactively redefine a symbol’s historical meaning, not that symbols can never acquire additional contextual meanings. I agree with that. Different groups can display the same flag for different purposes, but those uses don’t erase the flag’s origin or dominant historical context. Meaning isn’t frozen, but it also isn’t rewritten automatically by later misuse.
And that, good sir, would be a failure of reading comprehension.
The title of the article is, “No, the “Appeal to Heaven” Flag is Not a “Christian Nationalist Flag.” He supports this claim by matter-of-factly reciting its historical meaning. He does not acknowledge that there are Christian nationalists like Dutch Sheets who have clearly and openly repurposed this flag.
In particular, Turley writes: “The fact that different groups have carried the flag does not change the flag’s history or meaning. The rioters on January 6th also carried American flags, including “Don’t Tread on Me” and other colonial flags. They are symbols of our revolutionary struggle.”
This means, “Different groups can carry this flag, but its meaning is FIXED.
He does not write, “A flag’s meaning may be changed by different groups and ultimately used for multiple purposes, but its history and origins cannot be ignored.” If this was his critique, I would not have much of an issue with it.
And of course he cannot write this because the USA Today article acknowledges the historical/original meaning of the flag. Did you read the USA Today article, which is the subject of Turley’s post?
From the USA Today article: “Though long tied to the American Revolution, the banner in more recent years “has been adopted primarily by evangelical Christian nationalist groups.”
No one is claiming that the original meaning no longer exists.
When a flag has multiple meanings, it is completely reasonable to question one’s assumption that Meaning A or Meaning B is the flagbearer’s purpose. That is not the article Turley writes.
How can you possibly read the above (alongside the USA Today article) and arrive at that conclusion?
Would Turley enjoy a giant swastika painted onto the front of his house in remembrance of its use as a centuries, maybe millennia old, symbol of good luck, still used as which in Eastern Asia. It features in some of the WPA bridges that pre-date the rise of Nazism on the world stage. For example: https://www.cityofbartlesville.org/the-misunderstood-swastika/
Few would be convinced that goose-steppers wearing black and red adornments would be using native American symbolism on their sleeves.
His dodge is in convenient support of those who pay for his work on such matters.
Olly, Symbols are powerful statements that convey a belief or view. White Christian nationalists have adopted it for their cause, with Republicans displaying it in their state offices, rallies, homes, and other public spaces. They are doing precisely what they claimed those who support or are members of the LGBTQ community—rainbow flags in public spaces, teachers’ classrooms, etc.
This flag IS associated with Christian nationalism and extreme far-right groups. Once they adopted it for their cause, it became their symbol. That’s the way it turned out.
Original intent? No rational person would look at a Swastika today and think free Tibet. .. human behavior is ‘learned’.
‘White on rice’, e.g., could be used as a slur to describe Turley’s article today ‘No, The Appeal to Heaven Flag is Not a Christian Nationalist Flag’.
*pet peeve: I think there should be law no elected officials can wear U.S. flag pins (or foreign flag pins!) during official business . .. imo, the people wearing them, more often than not, give Old Glory a bad name.
That argument assumes the most extreme adopters of a symbol get permanent control over its meaning. I reject that. Adoption isn’t ownership, and visibility isn’t authority. Otherwise any group could seize a symbol to contaminate it and silence everyone else. The rainbow flag analogy fails because it was created for a single movement; the Appeal to Heaven flag predates modern politics and represents a principle, not a group. Letting later extremists redefine it would be like letting January 6 permanently redefine the American flag. That’s not interpretation. It’s power.
The Pine Tree Flag is a symbol of the Pine Tree State of Maine and for the defeat of the British crown in the USA. Those now flying the flag, knowing it was chosen by Christian Nationalist Extremists, outside of Maine, deserve to suffer the consequences of this latest association.
X says: Olly, Symbols are powerful statements that convey a belief or view.
Here’s an inconvenient fact: X (then George) didn’t say that when Black Racist Democrat communists like Black Liars & Marxists were flying the communist hammer and sickle at their riots and rallies. While regularly insuring that the American flag was noticeable only in its absence – like the first day of Obama’s 2016 DNC convention.
That communist flag IS associated with the Democrats’ racist Black Supremacist communists, whether Obama with his hanging out with fellow black Democrat racist communists like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, or their defenders and fellow communists like X.
The meaning is not continuous. The Pine Tree Flag was about Americans fighting the British rule. Is it now Americans fighting American rule? Is that a position a Supreme Court Justice should take?
For Maine, the Pine Tree State for a couple of centuries, it makes sense. Flying over Long Island, New York? Not so much. Clearly it is flown elsewhere for reasons tied neither to Maine or the revolutionary war against Britain.
Turley,
Flags are repurposed all the time. What absolute drivel to suggest that a flag must be tied to its origins!!
Commie Democrat,
What horribly placed misbelief that you have any credibility in Democrats repurposing that flag to claim that Christians must be racists, Nazis, White Supremacists, etc.
Straight from Gods Lips (Obama) to your ear: “Systemically White Racists cling to their guns and God”.
Why do you think I believe Democrats have repurposed the flag?
Are you just making things up?
What is not made up is Turley’s static conception of symbolism. His article shockingly suggests that a flag’s original meaning must be its current meaning.
Then O-dumber sent the IRS after the Tea party. For nothing.
So who was the dictator.
The hastily assembled Tea Party got some notice by the IRS by filing incomplete tax evasion, I mean, tax exemption paperwork because, being driven by Libertarians, they had little experience with government forms. Full investigation into the matter showed the investigation rate of Tea Party social clubs was no higher than any other social clubs looking for tax exempt status. The only thing that was remarkable was due to the fact that a year before they did not exist at all and, with their sudden existence and common cause, they could claim they were singled out. In truth, they were not.
Professor Turley,
The Appeal to Heaven flag has a long history. Its affiliation with Christian supremacist politicians largely began in 2013 after being reintroduced as a symbol of supremacy by Dutch Sheets, a highly influential leader in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), today’s most powerful Christian supremacist movement. Sheets has discussed how one of his “spiritual sons” gifted him one of the flags in 2013 and it caused a spiritual awakening in him. He published a book titled An Appeal to Heaven: What Would Happen If We Did It Again in 2015.
Dutch Sheets, Lance Wallnau, Mario Murillo and Hank Kunneman are four of the most influential Christian leaders in the U.S. Yet most people have probably never heard of them. As leaders of a Christian supremacist movement, they decreed publicly in 2022 that they have the God-given right to rule the United States and that they “have been given legal power and authority from Heaven.” These far-right figures claim to be “God’s ambassadors and spokespeople over the earth” who “are equipped and delegated by Him to destroy every attempted advance of the enemy.”
These men who made what is known as the “Watchmen Decree” are among the leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a new and powerful Christian supremacy movement that is attempting to transform culture and politics in the U.S. and countries across the world into a grim authoritarianism. NAR adheres to dominionism, which Frederick Clarkson of Political Research Associates defines as “the theocratic idea that Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.” Dominionism has long been a driver of antigovernment extremism in the United States. NAR is the latest chapter, and possibly the most successful, in dominionists’ modern effort to make their reading of Christianity authoritative and supreme in everyone’s lives.
Over the past two decades, NAR’s influence has broadened beyond church walls, pouring out this form of Christian supremacy into the mainstream, already wreaking havoc on local communities and our democracy. Their influence is real; not only did they have a voice in the Trump administration, but the new speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is closely aligned with NAR leaders. The goal of this new dominionism is to disrupt both more mainline versions of Christianity and U.S. democracy, and in its wake, take control of state and society and yoke everyone to their authoritarian vision of the world.
So, yes, it has been used by Christian nationalists as a symbol of the movement. It is precisely this historical meaning that appeals to them as it symbolizes (in their mind) the Christian foundation of our nation’s origins.
How you can write an article about this flag without mentioning Dutch Sheets is shocking. Do your research!
I mentioned it earlier down-thread. I doubt Turley did his homework and chose to write this article to stoke anti-left sentiment, what else is new, and let the gullible and naive take the bait.
So, yes, it has been used by Christian nationalists as a symbol of the movement.
Well, let’s go down that twisting winding road you want to deflect to travel down. Now there’s all the rallies held by Democrats and their Identity Politics voter groups where they use the communist hammer and sickle flag as the prominent symbol of the movement – not the American flag. Maybe a bunch of foreign flags, but definitely not the American flag and its’ presence as a symbol of their political movement.
Clearly, by your standards, the communist hammer and sickle prominent on the current Soviet and ChiCom flags is a symbol of the Democrats and the DNC of today. exactly as that flag from history serves as a symbol of this pastor and his movement.
Logical question: same thing? Or different rules because those people at the DNC conventions and other rallies from the Democrat Borg all vote Democrat?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course folks flying the sickle and hammer are not espousing Soviet or Chinese nationalism; they are repurposing it for their new goals of supporting socialist, communist, or workers’ rights more generally.
This “gotcha” actually just reinforces my point. No one would think the use of the sickle and hammer in these contexts would mean support for Soviet or Chinese nationalism. The symbol has been repurposed.
NAR adheres to dominionism, which Frederick Clarkson of Political Research Associates defines as “the theocratic idea that Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.”
That sounds like the totally impartial definition that would come from of a Chicago communist like Saul Alinsky and a Democrat Identity Politics group.
Yup. There it is,straight from their website and straight out of Alinsky/Obama’s communist Chicago:
Political Research Associates, formerly Midwest Research, Chicago, is a non-profit research group focused on social justice and the pursuit of building a just democracy. Our core issue areas span reproductive justice, LGBTQ rights, racial and immigrant justice, civil liberties, and economic justice.
They have the fecal stench of Obama coming out of every one of their Stalinist pores. In fact, the whole Marxist, lying screed may well have been copied and pasted from one of their news bulletins.
Turley isn’t paid to do research. He’s paid to generate rage-bait.
Dear Prof Turley,
I’m confident any appeal to Heaven will be overturned by SCOTUS .. . congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion.
Besides, Trump does not think he is ‘going to make it to Heaven’.
Trump has TDS. There is no such thing as Christian (Jewish or Muslim) ‘nationalism’. .. we’re all in this together, e pluribus unum.
*hillbilly elegy for Christmas .. .
I’m confident any appeal to Heaven will be overturned by SCOTUS
How hard were you laughing when you wrote that? Do you think Scotus will declare the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?
I see this as a left-wing nothingburger served on a menu of s-e-l-e-c-t du jour nothingburgers.
Of more disconcert is the growing use of “Blackened American Flags” also called “Black American Flags.”
I cannot find any reference to Zach Schermele ever writing anything about this? Why is that?
https://www.etsy.com/market/blacked_out_american_flag
also
“Future of the Black American Flag
“As society continues to evolve, the black American flag meaning may shift and adapt to new contexts. Its versatility as a symbol ensures that it will remain relevant, serving as a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggles for justice, equality, and freedom. The black American flag’s ability to convey complex messages makes it a lasting emblem of resistance and defiance.”
https://www.usamm.com/blogs/news/black-american-flag-meaning
Where is Zach Schermele? I’d love to hear his views.
How do you square the above with Dutch Sheets? If you don’t know who that is, do your research!
How do you square the above with Dutch Sheets? If you don’t know who that is, do your research!
I see you playing the desperate feeble hole card of Dutch Sheets. I call: the Democrat racist Black Supremacist, Reverend Jeremiah Wright – 20 years pastor to Barack Obama and the source of his racist bellowing of “America that elected me is systemically white racist”.
Do your research and claim the Black Supremacist Reverend Wright has far fewer followers and name recognition than this “Dutch Sheets”.
And then I raise you Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus’s dear friend and America’s most successful racist, with or without any pretensions of being a religious leader: Louis Farrakhan and his troops of black racism, The Nation Of Islam.
Your move, Anonymous Commie Racist Democrat.
I guess you have no idea who Sheets is either?!
I guess you have no idea who Sheets is either?!
I know for a fact you were much more entertaining as a sea lion when a ringmaster had you on a stool, balancing a beach ball on your nose while enthusiastically barking for the audience.
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers.
Often used as a tactic of avoidance by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
Where to begin!
America is a Christian nation. Who should be in a Christian nation if not “Christian Nationalists?” “Excuse me, your slip is showing.” Excuse me, enemy invaders, your invasion is showing. If you don’t like and agree with America’s Christianity, “Get up on old Paint, and get the —- where you ain’t,” just sayin’.
AI Overview
Yes, the vast majority of British colonists in North America were Christians, and religious identity was a defining feature of colonial life. While predominantly Protestant, they belonged to several competing denominations:….
_________________________________________
Why did the former slaves and their descendants stay in the America they hate?
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the acumen and capacity sufficient to the task.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Clearly, ~30% of the people in America are leeches and parasites who are here only for the “free stuff” and “free status” with no possibility of assimilation, while some are jihadi moles, hiding and waiting to attack for the Caliphate.
____________________________________________
The Department of Education cannot be taxed for or funded per Article 1, Section 8, and is irrefutably unconstitutional.
There is no enumerated power to regulate the education industry per Article 1, Section 8, causing the Department of Education to be irrefutably unconstitutional.
“[We gave you] a [severely restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
You didn’t.
You wavered and lost the resolve of the Founders.
“[We gave you] a [no political parties with a severely restricted-vote where welfare bums and men without land could not vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
We could have thrown out the Confederate Kluxxer Democrat party and banned the existence of that party of traitorous insurrectionists after they lost their war to keep black Americans as their slaves, nothing but Darky farm animals of another breed.
We didn’t – while the Founders would have hung every single one of their leaders and condemned this abomination of a political party they would have loathed.
We wavered and now we have a racist Kluxxer Democrat party that has also embraced totalitarian communism as their road to permanent commie power.
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like X, The Racist Democrat Communist Formerly Known As George.
It’s so sad that as a Christian nation, it refuses to follow Christ’s teachings.
How could there be a Christian death penalty?
It’s so sad that as a Christian nation, it refuses to follow Christ’s teachings. How could there be a Christian death penalty?
Pretty feeble if that’s supposedly coming from a Christian. First, God is the one who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6, NKJV) God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of you as a Christian to think that you could institute a higher standard.
Second, you exhibit public ignorance that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7).
I’m an agnostic and I know that and didn’t need more than a few minutes to find Bibilical sources. If you actually claim to be a Christian, you’ve done a hell of a good job of NOT reading your bible and refusing to attend church.
To recognize X’s desperate daily need to go off topic, especially if it’s something he likes that has come up concerning Trump, breaking news brought here specifically for X (George to you old timers, Sveletz for you very old timers):
FBI repeatedly warned Attorney General Merrick Garland didn’t have probable cause to raid Trump home
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/6abombshell-fbi-memos-show-agents-didnt-believe-doj-had-probable
“WFO has conducted approximately [Redacted] interviews related to this matter. Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents,” a June 1, 2022 FBI memo to the DOJ reads.
“DOJ has inquired as to an Ops Plan for a SW of MAL. I let them know we are not in agreement for PC on the SW and that we already had an Ops Plan in place that will can be quickly updated between Miami Field Office and Washington Field Office. “However, WF-[Redacted] does not believe we have PC for the 45 Office or the bedroom due to recency and issues of boxes versus classified information. Therefore, as we are in disagreement on the SW and its scope, we are not yet finalizing a SW as we are missing relevant logistics and details.”
Ah, the good ol’ days when AG Garland initially lied he had nothing to do with the panty-sniffing FBI raid of Mar-a-Logo. And then when called out as a liar, switched to bragging that he personally saw the probable cause evidence and authorized the FBI raid.
George X may creep from his lair to attempt one or both of the following as defenses of the search of Melania’s panties by his fellow perverts in the FBI while they once again violated Fourth Amendment rights through color of law.
1. Just The News, unlike CNN and the Washington Post, has absolutely no journalistic credibility. Don’t believe a word that they publish: stick with CNN and the WaPoo as I do and you’ll be good with me.
2. You must lack any ability in reading comprehension if you believe that adds to the base of evidence that there was no probable cause, and Trump was once again deprived of his Fourth Amendment rights by Biden’s Attorney General and FBI.
Anonymous, Just the news? ROLF!!
Some no-name field agents expressed an opinion that there was no probable cause for the search warrants or the raid? Wow, you’re stupider than I though. Field agents don’t get to make those kinds of decisions or chime in on what would be probable cause or not. Especially when a former President is involved. The search warrant and probable cause was decided by people with higher knowlege of the facts and procedure.
These “bombshell” memos show nothing new. But the sparkly “bombshell memos” meant to get gullible idiots like yourself all excited sure worked like a charm.
Did you know Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed those claims a long time ago? She had access to those memos. Trump’s own appointee didn’t buy the claim. Wow.
georgie admits that he is stupid ^^^^'”Wow, you’re stupider than I though” but apparently finds anonymous more stupid.
X tried this: Some no-name field agents expressed an opinion that there was no probable cause for the search warrants or the raid?
The implied lie that has two parts:
First, X insinuates that he actually knows the names of these field agents that weren’t randomly looking at this, but specifically sent looking for evidence that would provide probable cause to allow X’s fellow perverts in the FBI to go sniffing Melania Trump’s panties. Their names are redacted – but X has sources with “knowledge of this matter” who gave him their names.
Second part of that insinuated lie: they were far too incompetent to be trusted to provide the FBI Director and Attorney General with evidence regarding Garland/Biden’s desire to have a public search of Trump’s home.
Therefore, the details they were sent to develop and provide are worth nothing. Our Leading Expert On Everything, X, informs us that from his vast experience in law enforcement (at some point while being an expert in virology, immunology, the laws of war, Russia documents, Biden’s mental competence, etc) leads him to inform us that those memos they wrote as requested have no credibility.
Unlike the credibility that X, Formerly Known As The Democrat Kluxxer And Communist George, has built up here.
ROFL!!!
You really have serious reading comprehension problems. Wow.
X tried this: Did you know Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed those claims a long time ago? She had access to those memos. Trump’s own appointee didn’t buy the claim. Wow.
She did? X insinuates he has inside personal knowledge that Judge Cannon had these just-uncovered memos that Wray and Attorney General Garland had hidden until they were found and released today!!!
Republicans in the Senate and House oversight committees didn’t know of their existence until today – but X insists that Judge Cannon had them.
Anyone here believe X’s latest lie: that Judge Cannon know of and dismissed these memos going on two years ago now???
If you believe X, The Confederate Kluxxer And Communist Formerly Known As George, then now is the time to leap up and provide facts in his defense.
After all, the best X can do is claim she had knowledge that neither the Senate or House had!
Every time you think X can’t lie any more ineffectively, he takes it as a personal challenge to show even lower levels of being a competent liar.
You didn’t know those memos were available to Judge Cannon? They were sealed when she had access to them. The Trump lawyers pointed out this same complaint to her. Perhaps you should do a little more research.
Don’t you just love the fact that progressive politicos hate anything that has to do with human liberty.
Didn’t read all of today’s slop because I didn’t need to–the fact is that if a group adopts a symbol, even if that symbol had different original meaning, the symbol stands for the group’s ideology because that’s what the group intends for it to stand for. It’s just like the swastika, adopted as a symbol of the Aryan race prior to even WW I. Here’s what Wikipedia says about the origins of the swastika:
“Although used for the first time as a symbol of international antisemitism by far-right Romanian politician A. C. Cuza prior to World War I,[20][21][22] it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck for most of the Western world until the 1930s,[2] when the German Nazi Party adopted the swastika as an emblem of the Aryan race. As a result of World War II and the Holocaust, in the West it continues to be strongly associated with Nazism, antisemitism,[23][24] white supremacism,[25][26] or simply evil.[27][28] As a consequence, its use in some countries, including Germany, is prohibited by law.[B] However, the swastika remains a symbol of good luck and prosperity in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain countries such as Nepal, India, Thailand, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, China and Japan, and carries various other meanings for peoples around the world, such as the Akan, Hopi, Navajo, and Tlingit peoples. It is also commonly used in Hindu marriage ceremonies and Dipavali celebrations.”
So, no, Turley, it’s not the origin of a symbol that forever defines its meaning, especially after a group adopts it to stand for their ideology. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Christian Nationalism, the group that adopted the “appeal to heaven flag” in the United States:
“Christian nationalism asserts that the United States is a country founded by and for Christians.[74] Christian nationalists in the United States advocate “a fusion of identitarian Christian identity and cultural conservatism with American civic belonging”.[1]: 3–4 It has been noted to bear overlap with Christian fundamentalism, white supremacy,[75][76]: 10 Christian supremacy,[77] the Seven Mountain Mandate movement, and dominionism.[1]: 5 Most researchers have described Christian nationalism as “authoritarian” and “boundary-enforcing” but recent research has focused on how libertarian, small-government ideology and neoliberal political economics have become part of the American Christian political identity”.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is that Congress “shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Flying a symbol of Christian Nationalism over a government building is wrong and unconstitutional, and for a sitting member of the SCOTUS to do so is disqualifying and should lead to removal from office. And, Turley, Wikipedia is not always wrong–they always provide a footnote citation for the facts they publish, and those citations are usually authoritative, unlike MAGA media, with which you choose to associate yourself.
Slop???
First of all, your strong hate shows that you are in no position to understand or judge how a group adopts a symbol. Speak only for your own.
Secondly, you have no idea how or why the first amendment includes “no law respecting an establishment of religion,” so let’s disabuse you of that stupid fallacy: The first amendment’s reason, and mention of religion, is to protect it from government, NOT the other way around, as you extreme-leftists so-ignorantly and constantly spout. Neither do you understand the nationalism that Christians hold in their moral code. Get out of here.
Oooohhhhhh…. Wikipedia! There’s a trustworthy source!!!! Wikipedia got anything on Black Christian Nationalism racial supremacy as parroted by Obama with his “Systemic White Racism” that he learned in his 20 years spent in the front pews of the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Or from the mouths of the leaders of Black Liars & Racists (and embezzling thieves, btw)?
Other than that, the question is whether your misinterpretation of the First Amendment regarding the American flag flying over Congress and the White House since the first days of the Constitution being ratified until today is due to abject ignorance – or deliberate Lyin’ Like Joe Biden.
it’s the gullible Gigi aka GG again. Keeps changing her moniker because of the feedback she gets. But her words, style, and vitriol belie her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism
“Black nationalism is a nationalist movement which seeks representation for Black people as a distinct national identity, especially in racialized, colonial and postcolonial societies.[1][2][3][4][5] Its earliest proponents saw it as a way to advocate for democratic representation in culturally plural societies or to establish self-governing independent nation-states for Black people.[3] Modern Black nationalism often aims for the social, political, and economic empowerment of Black communities within white majority societies, either as an alternative to assimilation or as a way to ensure greater representation and equality within predominantly Eurocentric cultures.[1][6][7][8]”
That article even has this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism#Black_nationalist_hate_groups
Typical of this Anonymous (who may that be?) to quote Wikipedia the same unreliable quote the author of the NYT article quoted. Just like leftists, and this Anonymous, decided the Appeal to Heaven flag was a symbol of racism because conservatives that don’t believe in government supremacy fly it they have the same feelings for the American Flag. They claim that since MAGA flies our national symbol it must be burned (as they do in the protests and demonstrations that are filled with Mexican, Palestinian and other flags)
Sorry Anonymous, I don’t own an “Appeal to Heaven” flag but I will buy one as soon as possible and fly it proudly together with my “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and my “American” flag from now on. You can keep flying your Palestinian, Mexican or whatever flag du jour is.
I see no evidence of anyone wanting to burn that flag, only to recognize the current political meaning. It seems you believe that the government should be overthrown, the original meaning for “Don’t Tread on Me,” unless you think the Brits are coming back.
You adopted your Nazi ‘virtues’ because you lacked something to take its place.
Jon Turley knows that about symbols and flags, knows that they are often stolen from their original intents and repurposed as a dog whistle that will be readily recognized by the in-group while not being obvious to those on the outside.
I guess Turley’s handlers have a problem with Wikipedia where the history of changes is saved, links to source material are given, and the ability for literally anyone to make updates, updates that are subject to reversion if they are against the policies set by Wikipedia. It’s an example of communal behavior in successful operation and that really torques off the wealthy. It has been the ultimate free speech platform, as long as that speech can be backed with facts, something the Right really hates to encounter.
I guess Turley’s handlers have a problem with Wikipedia where the history of changes is saved
I guess your commie handlers, also torqued off by the evil wealthy, assured you that you would have the exact same level of credibility here that Wikipedia has.
Credibility so impressive that American courts without exception (or at least not one we’re aware of) do not accept what is published at Wikipedia as being authoritative and trustworthy. There’s a winner for a reference for you!
But hey! While we’re on the subject of representative flags – how about all those commie Hammer And Sickle flags that show up at so many DNC and Identity Politics political rallies? Big D Democrat Different standards?
Wikipedia literally seeks to avoid being credible on it’s own and regularly flags any material that isn’t backed up by external sources. It’s an encyclopedic reference, not a journalistic publication. Unsupported entries get removed.
Flying a symbol of Christian Nationalism over a government building is wrong and unconstitutional, and for a sitting member of the SCOTUS to do so is disqualifying and should lead to removal from office.
First, the continuance of your lie that this symbol is a symbol of Christian Nationalism – exactly like Democrats’ racist Black Nationalists flying the communist hammer and sickle is their symbol for demanding a similarly racist communist Democrat government.
Second, the wording is “shall not establish” does not mean what racist Democrat communists claim it does. A flag flown in an office is no more a symbol of government establishing religion than Democrats flying the Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe means the government is endorsing a call to make America Trans Furry perverts.
And speaking of Democrats and their Trans Furries and their misogynist demands that actual women bend the knee submissively to their demand that they be allowed into their daughters change rooms and compete against women in sports: demanding that Alito adopt your misogyny and command his wife to surrender to you her right to fly whatever flag she wants… yeah, of course you would demand women are further stripped of their rights.
Got anything else with more substance than the fecal stench of a Democrat snorting their own farts?
Trans women are literally so supportive of women they want to join their side. They are regularly exposed to bigots who harass and sometimes kill them; the same sort who already harass and rape cis women and need no disguise to enter a women’s locker room or bathroom.
I don’t know they want to compete against women, but the opportunities for a trans-athlete-only competition are very slim; the athletic leagues have specific rules to try to ensure fair competition, rules which continuously get adapted to ensure the competition is interesting. If trans women were to suddenly be at all the positions of the podium at every competition, then the rules would be revised, same as they have for doping.
Early intervention with hormone suppression can delay the development of male secondary sexual characteristics, such as facial hair and bulking of muscle. This treatment is what the bigots say they don’t want to happen to children who want it. Not sure why bigots should have any say over what a person, their parents, and their doctors all agree is suitable. You realize that sometimes they agree to cut off entire limbs, right?
Christian Nationalists made sure everyone could worship any or no religion. They built this countries foundation for fairness and equality which still is a beacon of freedom to the world! Thanks Christian Nationalists!
That expression was no more evident than when they burned down Mormon homes and promised to kill them, forcing them out of Missouri and literally out of the United States into non-state US territory. Until the 1960s Jews were regularly rejected from colleges and universities.
So all our rights are given by your mythical christian “god”.
There is no god.
Religion is nothing more than a security blanket for weak-minded people who are afraid of the dark.
If you wish to submit yourself to your imaginary friend in the sky, then by all means do so.
But do not have the arrogance and impertinence to demand that the rest of us, who live in the real and rational world, play along with your stupid and absurd games and beliefs.
Read the article. Turley points out that non-religious people can also believe in natural rights.
The premise is that “natural rights” come from some divine source beyond the control of man.
But non-religious people are not interested in your absurd and ridiculous “natural rights”.
As I said, we live in the real, sane rational world.
We are not at all interested in participating in your insane beliefs or “natural rights”.
We want no part of them.
By all means, feel free to live in your fantasy world, but don’t expect normal, sane, rational people to play with your stupid toys.
But non-religious people are not interested in your absurd and ridiculous “natural rights”. As I said, we live in the real, sane rational world.
I’m agnostic. And the communist theology of Marx – the Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism” – is no more persuasive than the deist and animist religions that you claim to be somehow or other not only intellectually superior to, but also morally superior as well.
You will, of course continue, to live your fantasy world of Marx/Leninist atheist theology – but don’t hope to convince agnostics that your any more normal, sane, rational or moral than the equally annoying Hare Krishna beggers are.
In fact, as annoyance goes, you are far more obnoxious as far as agnostics are concerned. Particularly your self-appointment as intellectually and morally superior.
We want no part of you or your communist Marxist atheist shyte.
But here you are, protected by a Constitution whose power is that it protects the rights of the worst of us like you commie atheists as well as the rights of the best of us, whether they hold any religious beliefs at all.
^^^^^ I told you the flies would swarm. 😂
And your buzzing did not escape the attention you were so desperately hoping for! Here you go, a cookie: your desperate efforts to have your presence noticed have been rewarded.
Correct, and natural rights are based on logic. For example, your natural self-preservation and ability to fight ensures you know you inherently have the right to self-defense. Everyone knows they have that right and no one could convince someone they don’t have that right, government or not.
This is the part that truly makes no sense: rejecting natural rights because you reject God does not eliminate the problem of power. It concentrates it. If rights do not exist independent of government, then every right you claim exists only at the permission of people who share the same fallible human nature that history repeatedly shows us is prone to corruption, bias, fear, and abuse.
Even someone who vehemently opposes natural rights theory should recoil at that conclusion. Because it means you are placing absolute authority in the hands of officials you will inevitably disagree with, distrust, and someday oppose. No rational person would willingly grant that level of unchecked power to people they believe are wrong, immoral, or dangerous. Ever.
Natural rights are not about theology. They are about limiting power. You don’t have to believe in God to understand that concentrating moral authority in government is reckless. In fact, skepticism of God should make you more skeptical of human rulers, not less.
The moment you argue that rights come from government alone, you are not arguing for reason or progress. You are arguing for permanent vulnerability to whoever controls the state next.
👍
Rights are the result of collective agreement and the ability to enforce them. Often that was some religious structure and, as often, some mutually agreed upon government structure. The phrase “Might Makes Right” sometimes floats into the mix. There are nearly unlimited examples of people being vulnerable to whoever is in charge.
What you’re describing is how power is organized, not what makes something a right. Collective agreement and enforcement can protect rights, but they can just as easily violate them. If rights exist only by agreement and force, then slavery, segregation, and oppression were morally valid when enforced. The fact that people are vulnerable to whoever is in charge is not an argument against natural rights; it is the reason they are necessary. Without rights that exist independent of power, “might makes right” isn’t a slogan—it’s the governing principle.
I would have difficulty disagreeing, and yet, there are pivotal moments in history where the pen is mightier than the sword, and an appeal to “Nature’s God” really does change the momentum because people recognize its truth – and even more important, because “Nature’s God” moves his invisible hand.
There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will. -Hamlet, Act 5, scene 2.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
That’s well said Oldman, and I think you’ve put your finger on the crucial nuance. There are moments in history where the pen overtakes the sword, not because force disappears, but because people suddenly recognize a truth they can no longer unsee. Appeals to “Nature’s God” mattered precisely because they framed the argument beyond power, beyond grievance, and beyond mere interest. They appealed to conscience, reason, and shared moral intuition.
What’s striking is that this recognition often precedes action. The momentum changes when people internalize the claim that something is unjust even if it is enforced. Whether one attributes that moment to divine providence, moral awakening, or the slow work of reason, the pattern is consistent: ideas grounded in first principles can reshape history when people are prepared to recognize them. That’s the thread the book follows. Not denying the role of force, but showing how moral recognition is what ultimately gives force its direction and legitimacy.
Very interesting, Olly, I appreciate you expanding on my comment. What book were you referring to?
You’re welcome Upstate. It’s Awakening a Forgotten Republic. It’s available on Amazon. It focuses on the Declaration as first principles and traces how fear and demonization repeatedly undermine them long before institutions fail.
“Rights are the result of collective agreement . . .”
So what happens to those individual rights when the mob changes its mind?
Your argument is so trite, so dead and old, as to be boring….Funny, how you accept the arrogance of “your friend in the government,” how you accept all of it’s rule over your entire life, appeasing its demand for your allegiance and even faith, but “religion is nothing more than a secruity blanket.” You’re lack of insight, here, is epic.
There is no god. Religion is nothing more than a security blanket for weak-minded people who are afraid of the dark.
This message brought to you by the communist atheists who worship at Marx’s Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism. The rock fairies created the universe! As a sign of atheist faith, they perform attacks on Christians – rather than spending their time attempting to convince people that their explanation for the beginning of the universe is the correct one.
Their main goal in life – other than pushing their faith of rock fairy atheism – is pushing Democrats’ new version of Stalinist communism. They’ve already had their modern versions of Lavarentiy Beria hard at work through the last few elections.
To agnostics, these bug-eyed whining communists are far more annoying than even a group of dancing and chanting Hare Krishna beggers.
We have rights simply by virtue of our existence. For myself, I have no deep insights into where we came from, why we’re here, or anything like that. What I do know is that the concept of natural rights walks hand in hand with ideas of freedom and liberty. If some people want to express those ideas using religious terminology, it does not alter the nature of the concepts and is fine by me.
Anon, it is you that exhibits a stunted outlook.
Christian Nationalism is the Left’s new bogeyman. A shiny object that poses no real threat, but is useful for distracting from their wanting to put males into girls’ showers and locker rooms, have males beat the crap out of women in competitive sports, taking away their scholarship opportunities in the process, to defund the police, open the borders to criminals including child sex traffickers and narcotics traffickers, interfere with legitimate efforts to deport violent illegal aliens, and shut down American energy independence.
The Left uses Christian Nationalism as a synonym for White Supremacy. Notice how one particular Marxist commenter here – who appears to be Gigi – sneaks the word “White” in front of Christian Nationalism without explaining it. That is an act of ideological warfare but it should not slip under the radar.
In fact White Supremacy and Christian Nationalism have exactly nothing to do with each other, nada, zero, zilch. I would never support White Supremacy. White Supremacists would be happy to kill me (a Jew), and I have personally been on the receiving end of murderous hate from them, in a face-to-face kind of way. However, Christian Nationalism has nothing to do with that. The people who insult it never bother to define it. But it means being a Christian and loving one’s nation, and rejecting globalism, are not bad things.
Oldmanfromkansas,
“ The Left uses Christian Nationalism as a synonym for White Supremacy.”
That is because it IS associated with White Supremacy. The far-right and White Supremacy have always been synonymous with Christian extremists.
“ However, Christian Nationalism has nothing to do with that.”
ROFL! It has everything to do with that. This is how they see themselves and how they defend their views. It’s what they used to justify enslaving people and calling Black folks inferior, all using the Bible. It’s also behind this anti-immigrant attitude. The whole idea of the great replacement theory comes from their biblical beliefs. That’s why people call them “Christian nationalists.” It’s a real thing.
FYI, Christian nationalists are composed mainly of White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. That includes outfits like the Proud Boys. They are obviously white folk who are not happy with the “cultural melting pot” idea of America. They want something like what they see in Japan, but with a very ‘strong’ Christian flavor that everyone is supposed to adhere to because that’s how they see God intended it to be.
This is pure guilt by association. White supremacists misusing Christian language does not define Christianity, natural rights, or the American founding. Slavery and segregation were defeated by appealing to natural rights, not by rejecting them. Neo-Nazis are not Christian, the “great replacement” theory is racial, not biblical, and lumping every belief in natural rights into “white supremacy” is historically false and intellectually lazy. If association defines meaning, then no idea survives misuse. Arguments deserve evidence, not smears.
It’s not guilt by association. It’s their view that it is by divine right.
“ Neo-Nazis are not Christian, the “great replacement” theory is racial, not biblical, and lumping every belief in natural rights into “white supremacy” is historically false and intellectually lazy.”
Nope. Neo-Nazis are Christian. They believe they are the only true Christians, and so are Evangelicals.
That is just a sad truth.
They are the ones who staunchly believed in the idea of slavery and owning people as property, and deeming black people and other minorities as inferior. They specifically used the Bible to justify their views.
They were defeated by those who used basic human decency. Not Natural rights. Because those who wanted to keep slavery also claimed it as a natural right to have slaves, because it is endorsed in the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it say slavery is wrong or that God says it’s forbidden. Even Jesus does not say slavery is wrong or should be abolished. The Bible has more rules about how to treat slaves, but nothing about any natural right to be free or anything close to the idea of free speech as a right.
Nope. Neo-Nazis are Christian. They believe they are the only true Christians, and so are Evangelicals.
We’re supposed to believe that the Hamas supporters in the Democrats’ New Hitler Youth Movement on college campuses, howling their support for the Arab hajji terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, chanting their demands Isreal be destroyed from the river to the sea…. those neo-Nazis are actually Christians and Evangelicals who support Muslim terrorists as a symbol of their faith.
Today’s new-Nazis and their support for hajji Islamic terrorism are mostly associated with George X’s political party – the Democrats.
The only question after that is whether they’re actually from the Nazi/socialist side of Marx’s communism, or the Leninist/socialist side of Marx’s communism.
That is because it IS associated with White Supremacy. The far-right and White Supremacy have always been synonymous with Christian extremists.
That’s straight out of Obama’s Black Nationalist Christian Racist Supremacy. In short: “America is systemically white racist”. Brought to George by Obama and his fellow racist Black Supremacists, like Obama’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, etc. George X parrots it here every time he gets the chance.
And who could forget Obama’s dear friend and America’s most successful racist, Black Supremacist Louis Farrakhan. Nobody does Black Supremacy Racism in America better than Louis Farrakhan over the last 40+ years.
Keep on regurgitating data thinking you are being incisive, George. Groan. 🙄🙄
You have an argument? Didn’t think so.
You have an argument? Didn’t think so.
X aka George: The obsessively projecting avatar of a completely absent sense of self-awareness so common in communist Democrats.
Mirror’s are kyptonite to X George… possibly why he only shaves and brushes his teeth just once a month. Doing so with the lights turned off in the bathroom.
OMFK
I’m a White Christian Nationalist and I don’t fit any of your definition. I use White because I am White European and I’m sick of these Marxists persecuting White Americans. I don’t consider any ethnicity as superior to another, I believe we are all created equal by God and then we each get to stratify among the rank and file. I do believe genetics plays a big part in our individual ability to learn.
I don’t support Zionism but that doesn’t mean I hate Jews and wouldn’t want to see anyone killed.
Hope that clears that up for you.
“Christian Nationalism is the Left’s new bogeyman,” but the left can only demonize without comprehension. It is a spectrum of ideas. It ranges from cultural and symbolic Christian identity to coercion, where enforcement and exclusion prevail. Most are normal Christians, not theocratic. The small outlier group does not differ much from the avowed leftist who desires raw power. I guess that means we can label Anonymous as an anonymous nationalist who is an irrational soul living in a fantasy world.
S. Meyer,
Great comment. I think I will have to use the “Anonymous Nationalist” in the future! Perhaps Anti-Women Anonymous Nationalist would be better? Or Anti-Semitic Anonymous Nationalist?
SM, Self-evident truths require a population trained to reason under fear. Demonization succeeds when fear overwhelms reason. Tyranny advances not by disproving first principles, but by emotionally disabling the citizens meant to uphold them.
Doug Wilson addresses the false concept injected by progressives that Christian Nationalism (CN) is the same as “White” Christian Nationalism (WCN), beginning at 4:19. Wilson is the rare person who makes a genuine effort to clarify exactly what CN is, and what it’s not, and he has done so on several occasions, including in a CNN interview. The progressives who falsely insist that CN is tantamount to white supremacy can be compared to Steinberg’s “View of the World from 9th Avenue,” where they understand all the nuances on the left, but look at anyone more conservative than them as being lumped into one undifferentiated blob with no distinctions. They also don’t come to grips with reality, such as the fact that most conservative churches identified with CN are racially integrated.
*. Justice Alito is an American and the United States is not just his address nor his wife’s.
The idea of life for instance: The German government arrested Jewish people, men, women and children and determined they were not entitled to life. God, nature’s creator did not do that. A government did that. The Jewish people existed before the government that took their lives. The “appeal” for this action is life itself, God, nature, nature’s creator.
PS I was was unaware of the pine tree flag, why a pine tree was chosen as a symbol, etc. Pine trees are born free I guess. From little pine nuts forests are grown?
I’ll hit on Omar and her ilk. Omar delights in saying I’m an American as does Tlaib. No, mam, we know it’s just your address. 🤪
While claiming their right to fly any flag desired, obtusely critcizes the flying of any other flags by anyone else.
I swear the dems have taken hatred to new levels. They must have a lab somewhere…
Flag gatekeepers. That’s how ridiculous they’ve become.
“all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.” is an absurd concept that has zero basis in reality of history. Rights come from those who fought and died for those rights.
People fight and die to defend rights, not to create them. If rights only come from victory, then might makes right and no injustice can be condemned until after power shifts. Slavery, genocide, and oppression would have been morally legitimate when enforced. The very reason people fight is because they believe something already belongs to them and is being unjustly denied. Force can protect rights. It cannot define them.
So you disagree with the Declaration of Independence, then?
That line of it, yes.
But isn’t that line of it kind of its heart and soul, the sine qua non which justifies our breaking away from the English monarch?
Not at all. The list of grievances do that. Also the DoI is not a legally binding document.
But the gist of the Declaration is that the colonies were declaring their freedom from British rule precisely because King George III was violating their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which meant the government failed its purpose, thus giving the people the right to form a new, self-governing nation. Without natural rights (rights given by God and not by government), that entire concept collapses . . . meaning the entire basis for the Colonies forming America collapses.
For my part, even if I did not believe in God, I would want the concept of natural rights to prevail, as a bulwark against the government becoming tyrannical.
I also reject both globalism and tribalism, which is why I accept nationalism.
Exactly Oldman. Without natural rights, the Declaration’s argument for independence collapses. A recent civic analysis I’ve been reading centers on the Declaration itself and shows how fear and demonization are used to sidestep its first principles, long before tyranny becomes visible in law.
oldmanfromkansas says But the gist of the Declaration is that the colonies were declaring their freedom from British rule precisely because King George III was violating their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
We continue to fail to learn the lesson – even when we’re discussing just that. The Colonists rights were not deliberately violated by Evil Ol’ King George. King George did exactly what every English monarch did, and continues to do, since the English parliament ignominiously lopped the head off the last English monarch in a muddy public square for attempting to usurp the governing authority of that elected parliament.
King George, as the symbol of the freely elected parliament governing the British constitutional monarchy, signed whatever the hell Parliament passed into law and put in front of him to sign. Whether it was a parliamentary bill declaring the taxes that the Colonists would pay, or a declaration of war.
The British colonists were stripped of all their rights, including those in the English Bill Of Rights, by a FREELY ELECTED GOVERNMENT PUT IN POWER BY THE VOTES OF THEIR FELLOW BRITISH CITIZENS.
So here we are 250+ years later: freely elected Democrat governments are once again violating our rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness… and we want to talk about a king that was utterly inconsequential in what the elected British government was doing to the Colonists at that time.
The lesson in who actually did the oppressing of the colonists keeps flying over our heads every year, while we lecture each other regarding a British monarch whose primary duty was staying out of Parliament’s way and signing whatever they told him to sign.
What’s your problem with it? too much freedom has you feeling insecure in your ability to handle it?
Embrace freeedom, you can do it! I believe in you. sheesh. u america hater
Making religion the arbiter of rights is the opposite of freedom and against our founding principles. Looks like you are the one who hates America, but we already knew that.
You’re confusing religion ruling government with government being morally limited. The Founders grounded rights outside the state so no authority, secular or religious, could redefine them. That idea is the opposite of tyranny and the foundation of America, not its enemy.
Olly,
“ The Founders grounded rights outside the state so no authority, secular or religious, could redefine them. That idea is the opposite of tyranny and the foundation of America, not its enemy.”
But the religous right do assert the authority to define moraity, laws as Christian based because they see government because they want the power and force of government to justify and enforce it. They are always dictating moral rights, who or what should be allowed to exercise rights, rights THEY deem worthy depending on how they interpret what God means by “rights”.
The founders were also deists which means they didn’t believe in the God of the Church of England or Calvinists, or whatever religious fanatics they had in their time. They made a general assertion at the time that certain rights are inalianable according to a generic view of God. But even that was meant to be about white landowners. Not slaves or women. You don’t see the word “women” or “freedom” in the Constitution. Even the term “persons” meant only to apply to men at the time.
I approach this as a strategic planner. The Declaration of Independence functions as the vision statement and guiding principles of the American project. It defines the end state: unalienable rights, equality in moral worth, and government legitimacy derived from consent. The Constitution is the implementation plan—the “how we do it.”
Like any serious strategic plan, it can be perfectly sound on paper and still fail in execution because it must be carried out by human beings with all the flaws history repeatedly reveals. The Founders understood this. They knew they were violating their own stated principles even as they signed them. That wasn’t hypocrisy born of ignorance; it was a recognition of the gap between the current state and the future state.
Every real plan acknowledges that gap. The evils present at the founding reflected the reality of the moment, not the legitimacy of the vision. The purpose of constitutional design—checks and balances, separation of powers, amendments—was to manage that gap over time, allowing society to move closer to the stated principles without concentrating power in the hands of those least fit to wield it.
That is not a failure of the founding. It is evidence of its realism.
You poor lost soul
Making religion the arbiter of rights is the opposite of freedom and against our founding principles.
That’s one hell of a strawman to attempt to build in order to slay it, that probably comes from the mind of an atheist communist Democrat. When are we supposed to believe that this arbitration of rights through religious belief started in SCOTUS?
Any SCOTUS decisions that come to the small week feeble minds of those throwing these pathetic attempts against the wall in hopes some of their stawman will stick in order to give them something to attack?
Some SCOTUS decisions with something like ” In the Book Of Genesis in the King James version of the Bible, God says…”?
After all, if such a thing actually existed, communist atheist Democrats would be giving us another Season Of Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Arson, Looting and Murder in protest.
Anonymous, look at a coin in your pocket. Please take not that it says in God we trust on the coin. Have you ever thought of what it means. You just don’t like it because Christians say that life is just not an eternal party because it might spoil all your fun.
Yours is the response of an eternal child as is substantiated by the your juvenile like postings. Be careful. Someone might take your cookie and make read a book.
Christians are idol worshiping barbarians. I don’t care what they think.
Then why are you discussing it?
People who don’t care about things, don’t usually talk about them. just the opposite. Denial?
How do you feel about letting others decide stuff for themselves?
Christians are idol worshiping barbarians. I don’t care what they think.
Rock fairy religion atheists are the cult worshippers of Marx’s theology that gave us their greatest examples of humanitarian life style like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al.
We might not care so much about how they think – but what they do as a result of how they think matters a great deal.
I’m sorry you totally reject what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “… that all Men are created equal, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” RIGHTS come from God. Men fight and die for those rights given by God. Jefferson got it right, 250 years ago.
You’re an absurb concept!
It’s actually referencing kings and royal rule because no one thinks all people are equal. They are equal in the sense of life force itself, freedom as in royal rule or manor rule and can decide what happiness is although I agree with Locke on the last right.
Slavery was an economic system from the beginning of time. It was abolished in the US, a first in history.
Blah blah blah…the lords and ladies of congress 😂 the dames and sirs of the judiciary 😂.
The pickpockets…times are hard, anon.
Now, the controversy is back after a USA Today article by congressional reporter Zach Schermele
After referencing Wikipedia, Mr. Schermele also cited a much more solid justification for his claim later in the article, that Professor Turley conveniently left out. In particular, Schermele noted that his nephew’s girlfriend once worked for a guy in Arizona named Larry, who flew the Appeal to Heaven flag, and Larry’s cousin’s dog-sitter used to know someone in Iowa whose great grandfather’s tailor’s wife’s grand-niece dated a guy who sympathized with Christian Nationalist in Canada. So you see, Schermele really was justified in his claim.
OldManFromKS,
Excellent!!
” Dark Helmet: Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Starr.
Lone Starr: What?
Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.
Lone Starr: What’s that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing! Which is what you are about to become.”
Nice!
OldManFromKS,
Actually, humor aside, our leftist friends see Christian Nationalist everywhere and in everything. This is coming from a group of people who freak out when some kid chewed a Pop-Tart into the vague shape of a gun.
No, no we do not see White Christian Nationalism “in everything,” it’s just that a lot of what the right engages in is part of that ideology, so because you believe in White Christian Nationalist ideology, you will feel attacked by us most of the time. See how that logic works? That’s “critical thinking,” my guy. It’s the objective “why” behind a theory.
Try some self-awareness and research, and you might understand why you feel picked on by us about White Christian Nationalism. But if that’s what you truly believe, what does it matter what we think? Live your life.
Right back at ya purple hair!
it’s just that a lot of what the right engages in is part of that ideology, so because you believe in White Christian Nationalist ideology
There’ one thing consistent with Marxist Democrats’ engagement with America. Democrat Marxists whose theocracy comes straight from Marx and his Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism. Other than a belief that communism via their elites like Obama, Biden, and Harris is a more superior form of government (which first requires the existing model of government to be destroyed), an article of their faith is public displays of attacking deist faiths.
Overwhelmingly attacking and defaming the Christian ones, with rarely a word about the Islamic ones despite all the butchery and slaughter they watching coming from those faiths in just the past few days.
For those of us who are agnostics, these Marxist Useless Idiot Atheists are even more annoying than a horde of chanting Hare Krishna beggers.
And with their desperate need to redefine existing language i.e. Illegal Aliens suddenly must be described as “undocumented migrants”, so it is with Christians.
There’s no such thing as just a Christian (like black racist and anti-Semitic Baptist Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his disciples Obama and his equally communist wife Big Mike). No, for communist Democrats they’re all white – and of course, all racist nationalists.
No mention ever of Muslim Black Nationalists – like Obama’s best buddy and America’s most successful racist, Louis Farrakhan. Or the equally vile Democrat black racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
This is what communist Democrats want you to believe is how they reason with “logic” and”critical thinking”.
You just go ahead and live your life trying to sell that, cupcake. It worked so well for you a year ago trying to get your DEI Hire elected; please don’t change a single thing in this strategy.
As I have stated here on the good professor’s blog more than a few times,
1) I am not white.
2) I am not religious.
How is it anyone’s fault if parts of Christianity, or parts of any religion, just so happens to make common sense to those of us who are not religious? You know, that whole honor your parents, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, bear false witness on your neighbor etc. Makes pretty good sense to me.
Yes, fact is leftists do see Christian Nationalism everywhere in anything. As OldManFromKS observes,
“Christian Nationalism is the Left’s new bogeyman.”
Nearly all other leftists policies have failed. So, they have to make things up. Just like when Trump was first elected, leftists were making all kinds of wild claims. Just like now, they make the false claim the ICE is making American citizens disappear. Or all those poor fishermen! They are for biological males in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, in women’s sports, taking awards and scholarships from real women. All you need is a little common sense to know that is wrong.
Dont ever call me “my guy.” You dont know me and most certainly do not have the kind of respect I command to get that familiar.
“Try some self-awareness” …….. Now THAT’S some real 5-star projection there, little darlin’. Americans simply laugh at the daily nonsense that evolves from your “tribe.” Your references to “we” and “us” are indicative of your sense of belonging – to what, is likely dependent on which way the wind blows.
Winner⬆️…🏆 🏆🏆
I see the Marxists are well-represented this morning.
Numerous Bible prophecies are converging at this moment in history. Daniel chapter 2 is a 100% accurate 2600 year-old prophecy shows a line of human world powers from Babylon through the final one, the United States of America. it is destroyed by God’s kingdom, which then grows to fill the entire with paradise. 6B people dying over the past 111 years meets the criteria of Matt. 24:21, of when Jesus judges the world and destroys all human governments. Apparently no one reads revelation, which shows that many of the prophecies have already been fulfilled. only God’s kingdom will all of humanity problems. 2 Tim. 4:3-4 is the reason people do not tell others about God’s kingdom as Jesus told them to do. The beast In revelation is a composite of all human world, governments, which get its power from Satan. Obeying Authorities like Turley points out it is not the same thing as participating with them. Nazi Germany & USSR proves that.
The history of the flag is immaterial when those who are using it for the purpose of associating it with Christian nationalism, like…Christian nationalists. To Turley it may not be a Christian nationalist flag, but Christian nationalists apparently have adopted it as their symbol. Speaker Mike Johnson has used it and so have other more extreme Christian nationalists.
The Proud boys have used the flag as their symbol of their beliefs. It is a prominent symbol of the far right.
“ In recent years, the flag has been adopted by evangelical Christians and Christian nationalists, who see the flag as a rallying call. Christian nationalists believe that the United States is Christian nation that should base its laws and practices around the teachings of Christianity. For followers of the movement, the flag symbolizes what they view as America’s Christian roots.
The flag has also been embraced by far-right extremist organizations like the Proud Boys and some neo-Nazi groups.”
https://azmirror.com/2023/06/14/flag-flown-by-extremists-posted-on-az-senate-security-desk/
The history of the flag may have had noble and modest beginnings. However, it has been distorted by the far right, and its meaning has completely shifted. That’s why it’s now seen as something more sinister when associated with Neo-Nazi groups and far-right anti-government organizations like the Proud Boys. Just as the Confederate battle flag is now linked to racism and bigotry, when extremist far-right movements or groups take on a symbol or flag, it becomes forever tainted by that association.
This ☝️ Thank you. I came to say this.
cmon, be honest you came to spread your purple hair commie propaganda
This ☝️ Thank you. I came to say this.
You came here to spread communist Democrat theocracy and BS. Big fail on making that stick. However, with that post you can leave with a smile, knowing that as you’re the first female (assuming you aren’t actually a Furry Tranny) to finally take notice of George X since his balls failed to drop, you managed to be the first woman to help him achieve orgasm other than his usual way.
You can now say that for at least once in your life, you did something kind for somebody else, whether they deserved it or not.
@Melissa S – We probably won’t agree on many things politically and the way I love and served this nation but glad to see your making it through the dark times of your life. I’ll leave it at that and wish you a Merry Christmas.
Melissa Stocksen, professional victim, unable to think for herself. She’s always right or you’ll be sorry!
weak.
Wow anonymous, you went right into character assassination mode. No wonder you’re not taken seriously.
Yes, Ishaan Jhaveri — cited by the Mirror — is manifestly an expert on Christianity.
Aren’ t they ALWAYS? 🤣
What is a Christian Nationalist other than a Christian who believes in and supports his or her country. Stop bending words to control over educated anti intellectual morons. There are way too many ” useful idiots” in this country already.
X the no it all strikes again. X is an expert on everything in his own mind. I can remember when X the know it all about MS -13 tattoos on knuckles said they did not mean that the man was a member of a gang. I can remember when X the know it all said that poor innocent fisherman were killed on boats that carried no fishing nets. Now X the know it all knows everything about a flag. Once again X I issue a challenge asking you to sight your sources. A selfie picture of your brain is not adequate.
Thinkitthrough, ah, as always never really thinking things through. What a surprise.
X. you just don’t like being remembered for your failures and why people laugh at your comments.
My apologies X. For once you did provide a source. I did pull up your link. The source you provided showed a picture of the flag at the Jan 6 rally and said it was being presented by a group of Proud Boys. The question is how did they know that the men pictured were Proud Boys? Did they interview any of these so called Proud Boys to ask them about their affiliation? The publishers of the story said it because they knew you would pounce on it like a bird on a June Bug. You believe they were Proud Boys so they must be Proud Boys and you found a source to substantiate your fears. To the man who lives in fear everything rustles.
Thinkithrough, do you read things through also? Because it doesn’t seem you did. You claim the article I used as a source said that the flag was being represented by the Proud Boys at the Jan 6 riot. That is not what it said.
“ The flag was seen carried by a number of individuals during the violent events of Jan. 6, 2021. The flag has also been heavily adopted by hate groups and other extremist groups. The flag is mainly popular with Christian Nationalists and Christian Dominionists. ”
What they did say is that the Proud Boys have adopted the flag. Not at the Jan 6 riot.
Thinkitthrough, you need to think things through a little more thoroughly.
The history of the flag is immaterial when those who are using it for the purpose of associating it with Christian nationalism
Aside from George X wanting to move past all the Democrat racist black Christian nationalists like Reverend Jeremiah Wright who preached both black racism and black anti-Semitism to his two star students in the front pews, Bolshevik Barack and his wife/husband Big Mike for 20 years. There’s the rest of the Democrats racist black Christian racists like Al Sharpton that George X and his fellow communists demand we pretend we’re not aware of.
Christians who don’t vote Democrat are automatically racist nationalists in George’s eyes. Just like Illegal Aliens are actually something different “undocumented immigrants” that can only make George’s Brave New America better.
X,
I love how truly brainwashed individuals throw around a term that didn’t even exist 5 years ago and was created by a consultant: “Christian Nationalist”.
Are these “Christian Nationalists” in the room with us now? Are Santa and the Tooth Fairy with them?
You are the embodiment of the “I support the current thing” meme.
So what you’re saying is you are proud about being ignorant. Mmmm… seems right.
So what you’re saying is you are proud about being ignorant. Mmmm… seems right.
There’s X claiming he supports both his posts and himself on all the credibility he has so proudly earned for himself here. Hmmmm… seems right.
Or more accurately: seems far left commie Democrat lying apparatchik.