https://x.com/danburmawy/status/2026407393920434348?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Here is the simplest way to understand the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. A Muslim becomes an Islamist the MOMENT he or she acts to shape public life from an Islamic standpoint. What does that mean? It means that WHENEVER Islam is brought into politics, law, social norms, or public order, it becomes Islamism. What does that mean? It means that Islamism is Islam put into action. So what is a “non-Islamist” Muslim? Simply a Muslim who remains silent in public life, who does not attempt to impose, advocate, or advance Islamic norms in society. Is it possible to be a ‘non-Islamist’ Muslim? Yes, socially. But theologically Allah would consider you an unbeliever (Qur’an 5:44). Therefore, the difference between Islam and Islamism, or between Muslims and Islamists, is not theological. It is behavioral. It rests only on whether Islam is actively projected into public life or not."
What is interesting is that I don't see a direct parallel to this movement in any other religion (I know that communism probably has some similarities, but it's not technically a religion.) Are there Christians who believe that the US is a secular nation that was founded on "Christian principles" and who would like to return to something closer to what the founders envisioned, sure. But they are not advocating getting rid of our secular government system, or for a nation where Christian clerics or "Biblical Law" are in charge. It's more of a return to founding principles. There is certainly not the demands for conversion that we see with Islamists. In Israel we see a Jewish state, yet is it much more secular than religious. We see Muslims and Christians as full participants in Israeli society. It is becoming more clear that Islamists (Muslims) intend to replace secular societies governed by representative governments with Islamic societies governed by Sharia. Fortunately for us, they are not shy about telling us exactly what they plan, and we can see in the Detroit suburbs, the UK, and many countries in Europe exactly where things are heading. I guess we can do nothing let things continue as they are, or we can look at what's happening around us and decide that we might want to do something.
20 comments:
The question being, what can be done that won't be challenged as an assault on the religious freedom of the false religion adherents? The one obvious tactic is to never vote for a muslim for any public office of any kind. Some will be appointed to certain positions regardless, but where possible, the people should have some say and voting is the best and most obvious way.
With the moronic decision which affirmed Scientology as a religion, there must be a discussion with a eye toward determining how that word is defined for legal purposes. Any "religion" or religious group or organization which seeks to "fundamentally transform" into a nation which subordinates our Constitution and culture to fit their design is a problem and by virtue of that attempt seems to me to be operating in a very and distinctly non-religious manner, but more like a communist party organization.
I agree that the religious aspect makes it challenging, beyond that I’m not sure. Ban Sharia or other parallel legal systems, clamp down on blasting calls to prayer and stop the performative prayer in public. No more blocking streets and that crap. Seems like a start.
Are there Christians who believe that the US is a secular nation that was founded on "Christian principles" and who would like to return to something closer to what the founders envisioned, sure. But they are not advocating getting rid of our secular government system, or for a nation where Christian clerics or "Biblical Law" are in charge.
Have you not heard of Christian nationalists?
From a conservative website:
Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation should be a Christian theocracy, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Christian Nationalism seeks supremacy over all else
https://www.compassionateconservativerevival.org/post/christian-nationalism-doesn-t-just-threaten-our-nation-it-threatens-our-faith
A Baptist website:
Those who continue to insist that America was founded as a Christian nation aren’t concerned about Constitutional facts. Rather, they find it more politically expedient to peddle a spiritual and political fantasy that is as credible as the claims of Religious Right leaders and pro-Trump Christians that Trump has been chosen, appointed and anointed by God to be the president, if not a prophet or even a king.
https://baptistnews.com/article/jesus-trumpism-and-nationalism-the-fake-news-of-a-christian-america/
And it's not an "out there, there are some weirdos who call themselves conservative Christians, but they are not in positions of mainstream power..." They are IN and connected closely to the Felon's administration:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/16/christian-nationalists-trump-administration
Do you stand against Christian nationalists the same way you stand against Muslim extremists?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh noooooooo, some outliers are saying things that Danny doesn’t like.
I’m sorry was I not clear enough in my post, or did you just need an excuse to push your latest narrative.
To be clear, a “Christian” theocracy is not something I support. Historically, Christianity and temporal power have never been a good mix.
But, pray tell, where are the examples of Christians establishing Christian courts or turning cities into Christian enclaves?
The excuses you make for Islam, are quite impressive. But you keep the focus on some fringe folks who have no chance to actually do anything meaningful.
Good job.
You know how much more credible you would be if you weren’t so focused on ignoring everything but “conservative” outliers. You cry wolf, yet ignore other dangers.
How many countries have been overrun and turned into Christian theocracies by forced conversion, slavery, or death?
How many cities have “no-go” zones where Cristians have so much control that the police are afraid to go there.
You e git nameless, anonymous, bogeyman, while a m pointing out actual reality.
So you cower in fear of your bogeyman and ignore everything else.
It’d be almost worth it to watch you try your BS in Hamtramck.
Craig:
How many countries have been overrun and turned into Christian theocracies by forced conversion, slavery, or death?,/I>
I gladly acknowledge that our nation's human rights and liberty foundations are WAY stronger than other nations', including some of the Islamic or Christian extremist nations overseas. As I've been clear. Our Christian nationalists and conservative extremists do not have NEARLY the power to abuse and cause harm as either the Nazis of nearly 100 years ago or the Islamic extremists over the years.
But that is a very low bar. I do not want to say, "Well, yes, we DO have conservative religious extremists identifying as christians who would install a theocracy if they could... but at least they don't have the sway as the Nazis or Islamic extremists."
That is too low a bar. I do NOT want to see our religious extremists rise to anything close to what we've seen in Nazi Germany or Islaimic extremist nations (or even Christian extremist nations overseas). Which is why it's vital that we pay attention to the authoritarians in OUR nation. We don't make anything "great again" by granting power and credibility to any religious extremists or those who would act against human rights.
See the difference?
Again: WILL YOU condemn our religious extremists who are taking root in the corrupt, authoritarian administration the way these other conservative groups have done?
You see, the difference is I/we condemn ANY religious extremism that does harm - or would IMPLEMENT harm if they got power - to those who don't agree with them. You seem glad to agree with us that Islamic extremists are bad... BUT, you won't condemn the conservative "christian" religionists who are in your party/on your side.
Join the fight for human rights and freedom from oppression by condemning YOUR party's embrace of religious extremists who act in oppressive manners.
Craig:
some outliers are saying things that Danny doesn’t like.
As I made quite clear: You can call them crazy outliers if they are actually on the margins. WHEN they are helping write the president's policies in their own likeness, THAT is not an "outlier."
Understand?
Join the fight for human rights and freedom from oppression by condemning YOUR party's embrace of religious extremists who act in oppressive manners.
And thanks for demonstrating that you'd act just as I expected you to act, based on past performance and your blind partisan allegiance.
I’ve already condemned the “Christian nationalists” to the extent they exist. So stop the idiocy.
I’ll simply note that your answer to the actual question asked is zero and further note the the number of countries that have been overrun, and their ethnicity cleansed, or enslaved currently sits significantly higher than zero.
But you keep focusing on the scary bogeymen and ignore everything else.
The difference is the you make excuses for, justify, minimize, and excuse actual Islamists engaging in the actual behavior you claim to fear. All the while peddling nonsense that continues to be overtaken by events.
If Christian’s took over city and imposed “Biblical law”, you’d be up in arms, or if they blocked streets to pray you’d lose your shit. When Muslims do those things you brush it off.
Look, I’m fine with nipping the extreme Christian nationalism you claim exists in the bud. But the Islamist movement is well established and growing. (To stick with the garden metaphor), prevent the one is fine, as long as eradicating the other is an equally high priority. Which means admitting that there’s a problem instead of wishing it away.
My earlier response didn’t post. Which doesn’t change the fact that the number of Christian theocratic countries which have had the theocracy imposed by conquest is zero.
For Muslim theocracies, it’s probably not all 57, but certainly a majority.
https://x.com/katy_faust/status/2026810876163240000?s=46&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
How many “Christian nationalists” advocate or engage in this vile shit?
Those should be no-brainers.
You’d think. Or at least make them get a parade permit and pay the costs of traffic control and security.
Dan,
Thank you for your three links. They were very entertaining. I haven't laughed this hard in quite a while. Not one of them, however, proved any "Christian nationalist" movement, which makes me wonder why you chose them. One of them said it refers to making America Christian. What of Christian nationalists in other countries? Do they exist to make America Christian as well?
The "brand" of Christianity most dangerous to our nation is yours, which isn't truly Christian, but has appropriated the word "Christian" in order legitimize wholly unChristian policies and proposals into our society and its laws, which is a true fundamental change of our nation.
Sorry people like yourself again seek to demonize with this "Christian nationalist" whine. To strive to promote Christianity within our nation...to encourage our fellow Americans to TRULY come to Christ, rather than, as with yourself, posturing as one who has along with those who crap on the faith more openly and directly...is not "nationalism", but evangelizing.
Now, Trump could certainly have chosen more wisely those whom he's tapped to head any faith-protecting department, but he's just a babe in the woods in terms of his faith, so I cut him a bit of slack there and keep my eyes pealed for foolishness. Regardless, there's nothing any of your links describe as being of true concern, despite how hyperventilating their words are in their fearmongering.
There's also some truly pathetic examples of historical ignorance with regard to our founding and the true position of the vast majority of those to whom we refer to as our founding fathers. There's no shortage of evidence which affirms hopes and expectations as regards the faith of the people, while still allowing for the practice of other religions as well. But to assert that Christianity wasn't foremost what they had in mind when speaking of faith and religion just adds to the comedic value of these three absurd links.
Only Trump-hating lefty morons would dare suggest that efforts to allow for the free expression of the Christian faith without fear of another Joe Biden sending armed LEOs to stifle it indicates a desire to be theocracy. There is NO ONE who seeks such a thing in this country EXCEPT for muslims.
"Join the fight for human rights and freedom from oppression..."
Once again I must point out this is coming from a guy who supports abortion and the party which seeks to expand it to even beyond birth.
Given how Dan's "progressive" "Christians" support and defend pro-abortion laws, it's obvious that if there is any Christians who are seeking to fundamentally change this nation, it is the fake Christians like Dan...the "progressives" described in your other post which Dan pretends doesn't describe him to a "T". Those Dan's kind seek to disparage are, like all Dan seeks to disparage, better people adhering to actual morality and as such, they wouldn't be concerned with promoting a government which imposes Christianity on all. But actual Christians in government means the promotion of the Constitutional Republic this nation was intended to be...not a theocratic replacement. Yet while they bray, they impose their progressive perversions and where possible, institute them into our laws. Again, it's the "progressives" and the fake Christians among them...like Dan...who are the real threat to or nation.
I do think that it is clear that Dan believes that his interpretation of Scripture can be used in formulating government policy.
As for his bogeymen, until I see actual evidence, I remain unconvinced. When it comes to Islamists working to establish an Islamic theocracy in the US and Europe, all I have to do is look at what they do and listen to what they say. So far, I've seen no evidence of a Christian analogue.
I suspect that Dan confuses those that want to see the US be a "Christian nation" in an evangelistic sense, with those who want to impose a Christian theocracy. Should all believers want everyone in the US (and the world) to also become believers, absolutely. Should those conversions happen by force or government fiat, absolutely not. I suspect that most who use the term "Christian nation" likely mean "A nation composed of Christians", under our current representative republican FOG.
Are there some fringe whackos who want a Christian theocracy, probably. Are they as advanced in their plans as Islamists, no. Should we focus on the potential, future threat or the present actual threat first?
Yes, they do tend to limit some human rights by denying the humanity of the least of these.
The single greatest worldwide human rights threat in 2026 is the subjugation, oppression, and slavery of women and girls.
Well I wouldn't bet against there being no "Christian nationalists" as the type the fearmongering leftist "progressives" pretend are an actual clear and present danger, but I would wager that among that tiny subset of Americans are a majority who only like the idea in theory rather than have any desire to see it happen. It's truly that much of a non-issue.
Given the reality that there are all sorts of crazy ideas floating around and people who believe them, I have no doubt that there are a few. Likewise, I'd be willing to bet that there are more Mormons who'd like to turn the country (or at least Utah) into a theocracy than Christians.
The difference, as I noted, is that we don't have entire cities where these alleged "Christian nationalists" have assumed control and are running parallel societies, and legal systems in completion with the US government. There is no Christian analogue to Hamtramck or other Detroit suburbs, but Dan wants to ignore the growing threat and focus on the maybe threat of his bogymen.
Seems like that'd slowly moving toward national suicide.
Post a Comment