Christian Evangelicals - not all are made equal
- Thread starter Nevermore
- Start date
At least two of them knew that they shouldn't be holding a prayer circle in a government building judging by the way they stopped and looked around to see if anyone was watching them.
Why any halfway sane person would put these lunatics in charge of anything is beyond me.
Why any halfway sane person would put these lunatics in charge of anything is beyond me.
Why does it have to be there though? Christians can pray to God anywhere. Physical location is irrelevant, even if the prayer is about a specific place.
Because it was about tearing down the division between church and state. They want a christian autocracy: and are literally praying for it in the center of democracy for the state. That's the point: they want to be the religious zealots that tell the rest of what to do and how to do it.
I should note that going to a physical location to "pray over it" is very much a thing, even besides the bit in wonko's post above.
I mean... pilgrimages are literally a thing.
Pilgrimages are rather a different thing, though. Usually, a pilgrimage is (explicitly) about letting the place have an impact on the believer, whereas we're more talking about the influence believers might have on specific places.
They went to a spot to pray they would take control of it.
You're right, not a pilgrimage: it was part of a crusade.
You're right, not a pilgrimage: it was part of a crusade.
However, it's not necessarily something backed by Biblical teaching, if I recall.
It's not the theology I ascribe to, to be sure, but that was hardly the point I was making in bringing it up.
i wasn't criticising you, more the people who were seemingly trying to bless a large blue carpet...
They weren't blessing a carpet. They were praying to successfully overthrow their democracy. They are literally christian taliban.
They were demonstrating their numbers and daring anyone to do anything about it. Anyone who did would quickly be blasted for being anti-Christian, which in red states is pretty much a death sentence for their political career (and possibly also for their actual lives, the way things are going). This wasn't prayer, it was terrorism.
FB friend:
Pretending that the "National Day of Prayer" is non-denominational is like pretending that the KKK promotes racial pride not just for white people but for all ethnicities.
National Day of Prayer Task Force Promotes Dominionist Language, Christian Nationalist Speakers
%%excerpt%% The National Day of Prayer Force promotes Christian nationalist ideology and dominionist rhetoric.www.rightwingwatch.org
Uhhh, what denomination is the NDoP supposed to be, then?
Is he confusing the word for "dominionist"? That's a very different concept.
Is he confusing the word for "dominionist"? That's a very different concept.
It's officially supposed to be as non-specific as possible. (It fails at this even when not being hijacked by extremists.)
The only legal defense that even exists for any of the blatant-but-trivial first amendment violations by the government is that they're just "ceremonial deism" and not specifically Christian.
That's what "non-denominational" means in the context. Not containing any ideas specific to any denomination, or even specific to the Abrahamic religions.
It has to be super-duper vague and generalized, because it is literally against the highest law of the land for the government to promote one religion over others
Also, dominionism is a denomination; an subset of a larger religion with distinct beliefs and ingroup identity. Specific churches either are or aren't dominionist.
(And as for actual confusion about what "denomination" means, the churches that literally call themselves "non-denominational" are some of the most isolated, divisive extremest asshats in the whole religion.)
The only legal defense that even exists for any of the blatant-but-trivial first amendment violations by the government is that they're just "ceremonial deism" and not specifically Christian.
That's what "non-denominational" means in the context. Not containing any ideas specific to any denomination, or even specific to the Abrahamic religions.
It has to be super-duper vague and generalized, because it is literally against the highest law of the land for the government to promote one religion over others
Also, dominionism is a denomination; an subset of a larger religion with distinct beliefs and ingroup identity. Specific churches either are or aren't dominionist.
(And as for actual confusion about what "denomination" means, the churches that literally call themselves "non-denominational" are some of the most isolated, divisive extremest asshats in the whole religion.)
I'm certainly not going to dispute that last sentence in the paranthetical, but your definition of "denomination" just before that doesn't match one I've ever heard before.
Honestly I was being more specific than I needed to be.
The religion-related definition for "denomination" at Wiktionary is just "A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a subdivision of a religion."
So it's not even a synonym for "sect" (which is why I included "ingroup identity"); it's the broader and more generic term of the two.
Look, "non-denominational" isn't the word I personally would have used to mean "not favoring a particular religion/denomination/sect/whatever", but the point is that it's obvious what is actually meant, and equally obvious that it isn't that.
The religion-related definition for "denomination" at Wiktionary is just "A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a subdivision of a religion."
So it's not even a synonym for "sect" (which is why I included "ingroup identity"); it's the broader and more generic term of the two.
Look, "non-denominational" isn't the word I personally would have used to mean "not favoring a particular religion/denomination/sect/whatever", but the point is that it's obvious what is actually meant, and equally obvious that it isn't that.
But that's just it. The prayer breakfast is supposed to be "non-sectarian" (that is, not even limited to Christians), let alone "non-denominational" (limited to a specific religion, but not to any subdivision thereof).
But you're obviously right, in practice. In practice, it's not only run by Christians, but by a specific sub-group thereof (if, perhaps, not one typically referred to within Christianity as a denomination... I will certainly concede that right-wing evangelicalism meets the terms of the dictionary).
But you're obviously right, in practice. In practice, it's not only run by Christians, but by a specific sub-group thereof (if, perhaps, not one typically referred to within Christianity as a denomination... I will certainly concede that right-wing evangelicalism meets the terms of the dictionary).