Thank you for reading and commenting.
I appreciate that you share my concern regarding Christian Nationalism.
However, I can't agree that a rational or reasonable response is "martial law" or
"rounding up evangelical leaders and send them to their graves..."
I have no truck with aggression and violence, nor with 'silencing' those who say what I or others neither agree with nor want to hear.
This is a fundamental problem for those who support freedom, rationality, logic, evidence, caring, compassion and who understand that recognition, consideration and discussion of even those ideas that appall us, is necessary if we are to progress as a race.
Change through such a process will always be enormously difficult for those with valid and respectful opinions because those who don't, such as the Christian Nationalists and other, predominantly right-wing, organisations will use falsity, abuse, defamation, coercion and, in fact, any tactic which they consider will be effective in pursuing their ill-considered and nasty views.
Those who oppose these views and the manner in which their proponents seek to impose them, cannot or must not, adopt similar perfidy for, if they do, regardless of the validity of their belief or argument, they effectively act contrary to it and so become no better than those they oppose.
That problem is one of the main reasons why the right-wing so often 'wins' - at least it is in my opinion.
So when I talked of 'opposing' Christian Nationalism' and implied it ought to be done forcefully, I was not suggesting physical coercion or aggression, nor discrimination through the enactment of specific and inequitable laws and/or actions targeting those groups. (Such an approach only sets a precedent to justify the same actions in retaliation when those others are in power or control.)
No, my call was for rational and logical argument. For 'outing' the obscene nature of the views of such people and the paucity of any legitimate evidence to support their beliefs and provide rational grounds for their statements and actions.
Yes, it can involve some kinds of restriction but I would suggest in the sense of 'mediation', rather than outright censorship by any means. What I mean is that we ought to be able to speak, write and present, using whatever media platforms we can access, in such a way that we clearly explain, demonstrate and provide examples that contrast the differences of the two opposing 'arguments' or beliefs and clearly show the failings of those who do believe in coercive control, by whatever means.
I am not religious but I suggest that the notion, attributed to Jesus, that in face of abuse we should 'turn the other cheek', not respond in kind, is an example of what I'm saying. Sun Tzu's, 'Keep your friends close but your enemies closer', is another notable counsel that suggests a sensible way to anticipate and be prepared to prevent, defuse or eliminate the perfidy of one's aggressors.
...
I apologise for the length of my response. I simply feel a need to clarify what I wrote in case others see it as some sort of call to aggressive or violent action. It is not. It is a call for the use of intellect & rationality & demonstrations of caring and compassion to become as strong as, (or preferably stronger than), those of bigotry and hatred, coercive control and privileged, (inequitable), access.
Take care. Stay safe. ☮️
roger hawcroft
