The language used by contemporary Christian warriors

Originally published at: The language used by contemporary Christian warriors | Boing Boing


Ironic: the ad placement on this article showing ripped women (and the beasts that will shred them to pieces in the colosseum?!). Clearly Christians!


First off, some Christians. Not all or even most of them.

And second, it’s because they think those views are morally correct. Obviously. Same as any other extremist religious believers or political ideologues.


Why do Christians still believe they have the right to impose their views through law and policy on other people, especially non-Christians?

Nat-C-ism is a form of fascist ideology, which means it’s ultimately about expressing power. In this case, religious fundamentalism is the tried and true blunt instrument they use to establish their supremacy.

After decades of work they’ve finally gotten traction on denying reproductive rights to women, and now that they’ve achieved that they’re impatient for more. Contraception is next in their sights, as is the existence of LGBTQ+ people (esp. trans people).


I wonder about that. I think that’s true of most of their “foot soldiers” and maybe some of the big money people, but I also think there are some in the higher ranks who don’t give one whit about morality and just see this as a means to power. Because I think if they truly believed in the morality of the views they espoused, they wouldn’t be so hypocritical.


Why do Christians still believe they have the right to impose their views through law and policy on other people, especially non-Christians?

Othering. That’s why.

And othering is often used as cover for power grabs. Power grabs in which the othered are the target against which the power can be deployed.


AKA, Dominion Theology. (Note: This interpretation may be doing some very heavy lifting relative to the actual content of the text.)


It’s for our own good, Godamit!

mad sheila broflovski GIF by South Park


That’s okay. I’m pretty sure a lot of “Christians” haven’t read the book and are going by what they’re told it says by megachurch owners, Fox “News” performers, and politicians who have trouble with the concept of “separation of church and state”.


Isn’t bearing false witness a far more serious sin than being LGBTQIA+? And then there is that bit of the Bible that tells priests how to make an infertility/abortion potion.

Do any of these people actually read their holy book?


Very true. But there are number who take it very seriously, all while not admitting to themselves that their theology was carefully selected to reinforce their own biases. While the majority of Christians would consider them on the fringe, if they consider them at all, their ideas have a way of percolating up through the ground, like the stink from a broken sewer line.


Anthony Bourdain Yes GIF by Ovation TV

Kenan Thompson Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live

If they do, they are reading it through a very specific lens as dictated by their pastors/priests/whatever… They are reading it through a lens of confirmation bias which seeks to reinforce their bigotry, so they cherry-pick the passages that confirms their biases, take them out of their historical context, and say that their interpretation is “inerrant” and precisely what god meant. It also strikes me that they are putting words in the mouth of their god, which is also a big no-no!


Do they, though?

I agree with your point about not overgeneralizing or painting everyone with the same ‘broad brush…’ but I also emphatically agree with Clutch that many of the aforementioned “Christians” who hold power probably don’t actually believe what they proselytize; the fanaticism is just a means to control others and enrich themselves.


True… but of course, the rule of goats always applies.


“Warrior” is another of those words like “patriot”, “freedom”, “liberty” etc. that sets alarm bells ringing in my head. The US military likes to refer to its soldiers as “warriors” (so, come to that, do Islamist zealots).

I know some admirable people who are Christians. But if someone describes themselves as a “Christian warrior”, I instantly assume the worst – which is to say, that they stand for a toxic blend of heinous bigotry and authoritarianism, flavored with self-puffery and bullshit.


Not only that, doesn’t it mandate its use?


The US military likes to refer to its soldiers as “warriors”

Have you any idea WHEN the label ‘warriors’ was first publicly spewed? I ask because I didn’t hear the term during my 1975-1981 military service.

But I worked commo (US Army) and as a field medic (Nat’l Guard). I wasn’t in infantry or armor, and thus may have missed propaganda aimed at grunts, tankers, and gun-bunnies – the “combat arms”.

I did not notice organized religious conversion attempts on-post. Have times and rules changed? Are proselytizers now permitted on USA military posts?


Some very ruthless and vocal Xtians and I have to question their concerns about being morally right. Power hungry, full of hate and fear seems more likely the driving force of this bunch. Are there good Christians, of course there are but they are sure keeping a low profile while the Xtian warriors try to cram their bullshit down the throat of everyone anywhere. I would like to turn to Sociologists for their take on the radical changes technology has brought to the world since the end of World War II. We have whole societies with their heads spinning at the latest changes in how the world operates. Things were already going too fast for comprehension prior to the new computer-age and the wild ride that is taking us on. People are reasonably awed by the changes we face from year to year. When we get to generational changes things go nuts. At 77 years old if I had somehow been ripped from my rural life at age 20 and plopped down in our present day I only could assume it was the wrong world. No wonder why people are grasping for stability but stability won’t be found in repressive and destructive religion.


Keep in mind that American conservative evangelicals decided, quite arbitrarily and without Biblical support, that the biggest moral issues of their church were things that, as straight men, wouldn’t even apply to them - homosexuality, female sexuality and abortion, etc. Totally coincidentally, of course.

Sure - it’s really easy to believe in moral standards that don’t even apply to you. This is why white evangelical patriarchs’ main “moral” concerns are about (other than straight male) sexuality and not charity, compassion and all that commie stuff Jesus actually talked about.


You could be accurate by just asking “Do any of these people read”.