“I’m sorry, but that is not a specific enough statement”

That is because you cut the part where I gave SPECIFIC examples of whom I (and Warren) was referring to.

“a train wreck of broad insinuation”

Only in your mind. If you are continuously the only one who doesn’t understand what Warren is saying, then perhaps the problem isn’t with what Warren is saying.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend–TMWSLV

The point isn’t that it’s true. The point is Christian-nationalists believe it is true, and act on that belief.

No strawmen here…

I don’t remember the exchanges quite the same way and I can’t find them because of the loss of comments after the site move. However, as I said, we disagreed then and I understand that we disagree now. You’ve just made the charge a couple of times and I thought I would simply say that I do not see it that way (the posts or Warren’s response to you). I don’t particularly feel like rehashing those discussions at this point, for lack of time if nothing else.

Well, because in both instances, when Warren was being questioned on the particulars of his statements, his response was to lump me or others in with those he identifies as wrong/bad (in soft fashion in my case, but chalk that up to his politeness).

I equivocated on his take concerning Christians and Christian nationalism, so according to him for all practical purposes I am a Christian nationalist. He states that everyone at the Unite the Right was allied with white nationalists/supremacists, I present him with proof that he is factually incorrect, and his response is that anyone present at that rally was placing themselves under the banner of white nationalism. In other words, they interfere with his broadbrush and convenient narrative, so with a wave of a hand we throw them over into the racist pile (including black and gay members of that free speech group).

His take on what Trump said in the wake of the rally (“both sides”) was also easily countered with facts.

This issue of the validity of the six questions used to identify “Christian nationalism” (was that term even defined?) is more a matter of opinion, I grant you. But on the Unite the Right topic? His assertion was demonstrably incorrect, and I presented the factual evidence, but rather than allow any nuance to impact his ideological tunnel vision, he villified the persons in the video. Based on absolutely nothing. I take that back. He asserted that because the event was organized by racists, that everyone who was present was racist (and, I guess, deserving of physical attack by antifa-types?). I shared with him a CNN article talking about the fact that no one knows who the heck will show up in droves at these events, regardless of who organizes them.

I do not like it when people use indefensible broad brush statements about others, and it makes me want to defend them. We all do it, but if we are intellectually honest we may further clarify or recant when we are called on it. Few of us double down, and when Dr. T does it I am severely disappointed. In a way, I feel as if I am defending my respect for him by countering it.

“Warren has had several posts about christians attempting to use the government to enforce their religious beliefs.”

I’m sorry, but that is not a specific enough statement to cast in a malevolent light. There are non-religious gay pro-life groups (www.plagal.org is one) who want to change the country’s abortion laws. As an evangelical, I want to change the country’s abortion laws. My pro-life beliefs rest on religious faith. Is the key issue whether or not the advocate for particular legislative action is religious or not?

I believe shoplifting is wrong, and I believe that for religious as well as utilitarian reasons. I want the government to enforce that belief under penalty of law. I believe that unborn babies at six months of development are equal in human value to a six month old baby. I’d have a harder time making a utilitarian argument for that. I believe it for religious and humanistic reasons. I want that belief enforced by the government and that’s how I engage politically, and I don’t apologize for it. I believe that baptism should only be performed on people old enough to request it. I do not want the government to enforce that belief, because I believe in separation of church and state.

What I am primarily objecting to is that Warren’s post is a train wreck of broad insinuation with nothing substantive at the center.

“I know what’s right, I know what people think, I know where the lines are drawn, and if you think differently or want to equivocate on what I have said, then you are obviously a problematic person.”

With respect, I would like to say that I can’t agree with this. I remember the previous discussions surrounding your Unite the Right objections and I could not agree with your assessment either. It was clear you felt strongly about it but in the end I believe we simply disagreed. I don’t remember Warren’s responses to be much different, but there was definite disagreement. I’m not sure why that would make you feel singled out at the “problematic” person.

Warren generally takes a long time to reach a point of frustration, even with commenters I think well and truly deserve it. Are these perhaps just hot-button issues with you? We all have them.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by repeating an outright lie. The people on the convention floor were not booing God, they were booing the convention chair who declared an amendment passed 2-1 on a voice vote even though it was impossible to tell what the result was.

It was the chairman’s abuse of protocol to steamroll an amendment through that had them booing, nothing more.

So once again you make claims based on your “beliefs” rather than actual facts. Warren has had several posts about christians attempting to use the government to enforce their religious beliefs (whether they are dominionists, christian nationalists, etc). While no one here has claimed they make up a majority of christians (or even of christian conservatives), they are not insignificant as you are trying to claim (again with no evidence).

Actual “Christian nationalists”, as in people who actually believe that we need to institute some kind of Americanized theocracy and then act/donate/support/vote in deliberate fashion on such beliefs, represent an utterly tiny sliver of evangelical Christians. Here’s an explicit conflation in Warren’s post, meant to connect a marginalized faction of kooks to garden variety evangelicals:

“Christians who believe that often also believe America was founded as a Christian nation. Empirically the belief that America is a Christian nation has been associated with likelihood to vote for and support Donald Trump.”

I already addressed what I thought of the “Empirically” part elsewhere.

The idea that “America was founded as a Christian nation” is a misleading line of demarcation to draw, because the very first thing one has to do is differentiate between those who believe that America enjoyed a Judeo-Christian cultural pedigree, or who just believe that the majority of the population was Christian, or who focus on the Mayflower Compact as opposed to the Constitution when considering the nations origins, or who believe that the Founders shared a fundamentally Christian ethic even if they were not explicitly Christian, etc. etc. Acting as if every person who says that they agree with the statement that “America was founded as a Christian nation” thinks that public Christianity should be enforced by law on any level common to Dominionists is flatly absurd.