this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
577 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18074 readers
6374 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The former president is still feeding the Christian right’s persecution complex

In recent campaign stops and on social media, Donald Trump has reprised lies aimed at inciting his Christian-right base against Joe Biden. These tirades, centered on the false charge that the Biden administration is persecuting Christians, aren’t just Trump’s typically dubious claims. Much like Trump’s lies about a stolen election, they are designed to immerse his loyalists in a grievance-laden alternative reality in which Trump alone can rescue them from an evil government threatening their freedom.

In a Dec. 19 speech in Iowa, for example, Trump pledged, “As soon as I get back in the Oval Office, I’ll also immediately end the war on Christians. I don’t know if you feel it. You have a war. There’s a war.” Speaking just after the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified him from appearing on the state’s GOP primary ballot, Trump tied this “war” to his own legal woes. “Under crooked Joe Biden, Christians and Americans of faith are being persecuted and government has been weaponized against religion like never before. And also presidents like never before,” he added. “I always say Al Capone was treated better than I was treated.”

Trump has promoted the theme of Christian persecution in the past, but is elevating it again as these legal issues mount. His clear purpose is to deflect attention from his own criminal liabilities by insinuating that the same Biden administration he falsely claims is unfairly targeting him for prosecution is similarly persecuting religious Americans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid 126 points 5 months ago (13 children)

Do you know what "War on Christmas" really means? It means "everyone who isn't a Christian should either conform to us or get the fuck out of this country because it's a Christian country." Which is one of the reasons that all of us who were born here, maybe had ancestors here going back generations, whose only "crime" was not being Christian are regularly made to feel like we're foreigners in our own homeland. I didn't celebrate Christmas growing up in religious Indiana. I was treated like shit for it. There's no war on Christmas. There's a war against people who don't celebrate Christmas or even just dare to say they aren't big fans of Christmas. Enjoy our holiday our way. Or else. That's the war. And they're the ones waging it.

We should be allowed, in "the land of the free" to not want to take part in Christmas for any reason be it another religion, psychological issues, it's too commercial, you think Santa looks stupid, whatever, and not be given shit for it by these MAGA assholes trying to force their theocratic will on all of us.

[–] rdyoung 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

What's even better is that Christmas isn't even a religious holiday (not in the way they think it is). The current version of Santa was created by Coca-Cola in the 30s iirc and Jesus' birthday would have actually been sometime in the summer or early fall. Basically, Xmas as we know it here is less than a century old and originally had nothing to do with Jesus or any other religious nonsense.

Xmas, Easter and more have been preempted by the catholic church. They were originally pagan holidays based around the seasons, the sun, etc

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago (3 children)

You're mixing things up a little. Santa wears red and white because of Coca Cola advertising. He used to wear all kinds of crazy colors. Jesus's "birthday" is celebrated in December to coincide with winter solstice celebrations that already existed in Roman times. It's hard to tell when it "should have been", but there wouldn't be shepards outside with their flock at night in December. Maybe Spring.

[–] GentriFriedRice 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The shepherd at night is probably a red herring. Shepherds stay out at night during lambing season which is February-April in Europe and North America but November-March in Israel

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Possibly. But also a census (the reason for Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem) in wintertime would not have been practical in Ancient Judea.

There's a surprising number of people writing about this:

A great deal more could be said, but for now I simply want to draw the reader’s attention to the time period which keeps coming up in relation to the first census headed by Quirinius: the years 8–6 BC. Keeping in mind that the Magi gave Herod information that prompted him to kill all the Bethlehem boys “from two years old and under” (Mt 2:16, probably meaning between the ages of one and two), plus they visited Herod at Jerusalem rather than at his winter quarters at Jericho, this visit probably took place in the summer or early fall of 5 BC (we have to allow for their travel time to and from Persia while avoiding the hardships of a winter journey). Add between one and two years to that, and early spring in 6 BC seems to be a good fit for Quirinius’ census.

The Roman and Judean rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular. Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel…Luke's account of the census argues strongly against a December date for Messiah's birth. For such an agrarian society, an autumn post-harvest census was much more likely.

https://biblearchaeology.org/abr-projects-main/the-daniel-9-24-27-project-2/4368-pinpointing-the-date-of-christ-s-birth

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)