Is Project 2025 the goal of the religious right? No longer is prosthelitizing good enough. Now they want to use force and violence to convince the public that a Christian Nationalist theocracy, which, make no mistake, would be fascism, is the “correct” form of government. This is an alarming turn of events, and could help explain the current Charlie Kirk psyop.
Since all government is slavery, a Christian nationalist society would be no exception.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ―
Project 2025 is a 900-plus-page policy document spearheaded by the far-right Heritage Foundation that espouses a Christian theocracy. This ideology is being further solidified in the wake of the death of infamous and often inflammatory Christian nationalist, Charlie Kirk, who is being lauded as a martyr for “dying for his faith.”
“Today, we celebrate the life of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old God-fearing Christian man, a husband, father of two, a patriot, a civil rights activist, and now a Christian martyr,” said Rob McCoy, the pastor emeritus of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in California, accoridng to a report by CNN. His death seems to have reignited the right under the goal of imposing their theocracy on everyone else.
Regardless of your religion, this should at least make you take pause. Other theocracies, such as those in the Middle East, have been imposed with horrific and disastrous effects for women, members of the LGBTQ community, and those who don’t believe in the right god the right way (think Sunnis versus Shias).
Christian Nationalism On the Rise: Ruler Reposts Video Saying Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote
Pastor Luke Barnett said Kirk “gave his life doing what the preachers of America oughta be doing, speaking the truth from the pulpits.” Barnett further noted that the attack on Kirk was an attack on Christianity. “We really are in a spiritual war,” Barnett said. “And by the way, Charlie Kirk, what killed him today was not his political views. It was his biblical views, his biblical views of truth.”
Kirk pushed for a Christian Nationalist society, one in which men ruled over women and minorities, and no one was free to worship or avoid religion as they see fit for their own lives.
“There is no separation of church and state,” Kirk said on his podcast in 2022. “It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.” Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. Considering the most tyrannical governments in history have been religious theocracies (again, look at Islamic nations in the Middle East), it seems more moral to align with secular humanism than a religion right now.
Charlie Kirk was a huge fan of treating entire groups of people horribly and saying awful things about them while using his Bible to condone his behavior.
All people everywhere should have the basic human right to believe anything they want, so long as they are not using force or violence on others. Once you start dehumanizing those who don’t believe as you do and call for a ruling class to impose your beliefs on everyone else, you have lost the script and can no longer claim the moral high ground. This is what’s happening with Christian nationalism, something Charlie Kirk promoted.
You have every right to be religious, tithe 10% of your income, and believe in whatever savior you want. You do not have the right to harm others who do not share in your belief, even if your belief system tells you to. It is also immoral to punish others for not believing like you do. What you can do is isolate yourself with others who only think like you and create an ever-increasing echo chamber where you are never exposed to others who see the world differently. If the right is truly the party of freedom, this will make sense.
What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to totalitarianism?
Read the full article here
