Posted on 08/26/2022 2:26:51 PM PDT by Ennis85
A high-profile Washington, D.C. conservative pundit exploded in anger during a podcast interview he was conducting when his guest suggested that the burgeoning conservative Christian nationalist movement would inevitably push for the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
After asserting that Dave Rubin’s gay “marriage” is something “beautiful,” Ben Domenech, a Fox News contributor and founder and former publisher of The Federalist, lashed out at his guest, National Conservatism movement leader Yoram Hazony, who had said that “gay marriage is already back on the table,” ripe for a revitalized national public debate.
Domenech, showing that his ties with social conservatives are merely tenuous, seethed:
I want you to understand this. We will beat you. We are beating you. We are destroying you in terms of the polling, like there’s no basis for an anti-gay marriage conservative movement. It doesn’t exist. I mean, it’s less than 25%. You are losing this argument. You’ve lost the argument. I don’t know why you want to go back and fight it.
“You’re picking a fight that you’ve already lost,” added Domenech. “Everyone who agrees with you is going to die.”
A few minutes later Domenech again pushed back against Hazony and the conservative Christian nationalist movement as out of step with America, doubling down on homosexual “marriage” as an important part of the “American experience” and adding support for pornography to the mix:
There are a lot of issues where the Christian nationalist is actually at odds with the American experience in ways that are detrimental to their ability to succeed. I would include gay marriage among that, but I would also include pornography among that. … I just don’t think that’s going to happen.
The dramatic revival of Christian political activism can’t be stopped
As Hazony, an Orthodox Jew and Chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation, continued to stand up to him, Domenech objected to Hazony’s defense of the conservative Christian nationalist movement, stooping to say, “Well, you know what? I’m a Christian, and you’re not.”
Stunned by Domenech’s infelicitous remark, his guest asked, “Do you want to know what I think is going to happen or have you heard enough?”
Hazony then explained, “I think as a fact what is happening is that we are watching a revival of a Christian conservatism, a Christian nationalism which resembles in a lot of ways the movement that put Ronald Reagan in office in the 1980s. ”
He continued, “We’re not talking about what’s going to happen in three months. We’re talking about what’s going to happen in the next ten years. What’s the trajectory? I’m telling you the trajectory is that in the last generation Christianity, and especially Protestantism, in the United States, has been politically, emotionally, as dead as a doornail.”
Hazony recounted that after he published his book on the Bible in 2012, high profile Christian figures began reaching out to him about what they saw as the death of Christianity in America. While Supreme Court decisions on abortion and gay marriage played a role in fostering this perspective, the main thing that informed the views of these folks was that they realized that they “were losing their kids, and that they couldn’t see how they could keep their kids Christian in the cultural environment that was taking place.”
“What they were describing is the result of one loss after another after another. It had gone on for two generations,” said Hazony, adding:
What’s taking place right now… is related to the resurgence of nationalism, and Christian nationalism is connected to the status of the Bible. The clarity with which these young Christian leaders are able to see the difference between woke neo-Marxism, which is what’s coming, and a restoration of many Christian pillars of how society is supposed to work — the clarity between those two things is causing all this wind to blow in all these sails.
“I don’t think you can stop … the absolute, the dramatic revival of Christian political activism and Christian nationalism as a reaction to the destruction of the liberal order,” Hazony declared. “What’s coming is going to be a choice between something that restores big pieces of the old Christian norms in public life and a continuation of the cultural revolution.”
“Those people who want 1985 liberalism, you may think that they have the most coherent worldview, that their arguments are the best arguments, but that doesn’t make any difference,” he continued. “We tried 1985 liberalism, and it ended up being Marxism.”
More merciful than God?
A decade ago, a friend and I approached Domenech about his views on same-sex marriage after he had participated in a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute. He made it clear it wasn’t an issue he would fight against.
Domenech says he’s a Christian who supports same-sex marriage. He obviously thinks it loving and merciful to do so. But as my friend Jean Lloyd, a same-sex attracted woman happily married to her husband and a mother of two, once pleaded with her pastor and her Christian friends:
Love me but remember that you cannot be more merciful than God. It isn’t mercy to affirm same-sex acts as good. Practice compassion according to the root meaning of “compassion”: Suffer with me.
Don’t compromise truth; help me to live in harmony with it.
Exacaticly.
But the love and caring of a Christian, with no strings attached, often comes first.
Then comes the aha moment, perhaps. Then the repentance, which lasts about one second, if even that, before the Lord forgives all that the person is sorry for.
“Many like MTG, Boebert and mastriano are for doing away with the separation of Church and state.”
That’s not true. You sound like a left-wing propagandist. Conservatives support religious freedom and don’t want the government interfering with or regulating religion. You’re confusing the use of Christian morals and principles to shape public policy with the establishment of an official state religion. Liberals usually have trouble wrapping their heads around that.
Yep. They shouldn’t be but they are.
What about Matthew 18:18 ?
LOL, thank you for the correction!
Ben Domenech is Mr Meghan McCain, he was also on the Against Trump cover of National Review.
A Bush Leaguer.
My parents and eldest brother are Anons and it’s true. Ya’ll are replacing solid conservatives with your own crazy (especially local level) to move up. MTG and others are posted in here when victims or heros, but never their crazy. You do so because you believe we are ignorant and don’t get it, so you’re moving us slowly in that direction, for our own good of course. I won’t be led down that road, I won’t buy your tshirts or support crazy politicians. Truth Social is crawling with msm and they agreed weeks ago to turn over member accounts to the FBI that are threatening. Name calling and insults shows you cant debate with logic. Sad. Good day, Sir.
Pointing out that you’re posting liberal talking points is name-calling? Now I’m supposed to believe that the rest of your family are Q-anon followers? Sounds oddly like a scenario ripped straight from a WaPo or NYT article. I’ve never met a flesh and blood Q-Anon person in my life. As for Truth Social, I have no idea what’s posted there because I don’t do social media. If actual people are really posting actual threats they should certainly be reported. Not sure what the relevance is to what we’re discussing here in this thread though. Seems like a non-sequitor from you.
Please stop lying. You’re making your left-wing proclivities just too obvious now.
“Many like MTG, Boebert and mastriano are for doing away with the separation of Church and state.”
Separation of Church and State isn’t “a thing” in the Constitution. It’s mentioned briefly in a tangential document. There’s nothing to do away with.
You just gave your OK for the country to allow unbelievers to enjoy being pedophiles. Government still have responsibility.
Dome each is married to M McCain. Pay no attention to him.
I am proud to be a Christian Nationalist!
Specifically, Jefferson mentioned a “wall of separation between church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and in the context of no government having the power to infringe upon free exercise thereof.
The first constitution to explicitly state “the church is separated from the state” was the USSR constitution.
Yes. The concept was in a letter.
I believe the verses preceding Matthew 18:18 support the admonition to "call them out".
"If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Two points. In 2022 what is the church Christ speaks of
Is it the Roman Catholic Church, the Missouri Synod, the Society of Friends,the AME ? You do see the problem? Second point. Nowhere in Matthew does Christ direct the Apostles to dictate to general society. If the pagans remain pagan, so be it. He recognizes that the church will exist in, yet be apart from the world.
Despite what some men may believe, Christ has only one church - one body.
Nowhere in Matthew does Christ direct the Apostles to dictate to general society.
This may be true. Matthew 18 is speaking to those who claim to be His followers.
He directs faithful Christians to confront unrepentant Christians. I put to you that people who claim to be Christian and who practice, endorse or enable sins like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, abortion etc. - need to be treated according to Matthew 18.
In that last comment you made a cogent point.
Even more than abortion, which sees appeal to rare cases in order to justify it, homosexual relations stands as the primary canary in the mine in revealing compromise, since there is zero justification for it in the name of saving lives, nor any other argument of necessity, and is more perverse than abortion as evil as that is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.