For years those on the left have been hysterically warning about the danger of a Christian theocracy being imposed on the US. Lately the hysterical crying has been about Christian nationalism. Strangely enough, we haven't seen one single city or state which has been turned into a Christian enclave. We've not seen a single city or state where Christian law has been imposed. We've not seen Christians threatening to take over anyplace, nor have we seen Christians blocking public streets and spaces to pray in public.
Strangely enough, what we HAVE seen, is those on the left encouraging and enabling the importation of a group which actually IS intent on turning the US into a theocracy. The ASPL can point to no example in the US of a Christian version of Dearborne or Hamtramck MI. The ASPL can point to no example of a Christian cleric advocating the imposition of Christian law or advocating overthrowing the US to form a Christian nation. The ASPL can't point to Christians working in extra legal ways to impose Christianity on non Christians.
This seems like a very strange philosophy to me. To decry theocracy on the one hand, while encouraging it on the other.
https://x.com/1109patricia/status/1979429862621225135?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
She makes some excellent points here. How can a culture or worldview that treats women as possessions, subjugates them, refuses to give them equal rights, refuses to educate them, insists that 9 year olds should be able to marry adult men, and believes that rape, stoning, and honor killings are normal and appropriate be compatible with Western Civilization? How can leftists justify encouraging and allowing this worldview to replace Western Civilization?
5 comments:
(It really does sound like she was saying "grape" every time she mentioned "rape". The first time the caption said "grape", but it sounded like "grape" every time she said it. Obviously irrelevant to the serious subject matter, but it stood out to me, so...)
There is a trend among podcasters to avoid terms that might get their content flagged by You Tube or whoever. Grape for rape, or unalived for murdered are simply a way to dodge the censors, yet still discuss topics that are controversial. It's stupid, but it's much more about avoiding being taken down than anything else.
The UK is where the USA is heading for. Letting Muslims in the country is insane.
I wondered about that possibility, and it explains the "unalived" expression well enough.
Yeah, it's kind of stupid, but I think that it is a way for the various platforms to censor people that they don't agree with for having serious conversations about difficult or contentious topics.
Post a Comment