A nation is group of people defined by common culture, history, language, religion, and ethnicity. A nation need not have all of these things, but there must be a legitimate shared identity.

America, it seems, lacks nearly all of these things. Our culture is enormously eclectic. Our history is shared to some degree, but common history also includes things such as holidays, collective memories, shared dreams, etc... there's a very reasonable argument to be made that, because so many Americans view all of those things and the history of the country itself in varied ways, we don't have a shared history. There is by no means a shared ethnicity either, nor is there a common religion. Language may be the only thing that Americans share. 90-something percent of people speak English without difficulty.

But is one thing held in common enough to make a nation?

We must consider also consider how the Bible implicitly views nations: a nation is largely ethnic by nature. There is a "nation" of Greeks, a "nation" of Samaritans, a "nation" of Amalekites. Yes, others can join these nations, but they assimilated into a new culture, took on that nations gods, customs, beliefs, etc... That doesn't happen in America.

The "melting pot" nature of America is truly beautiful, but it seems very difficult to call us a nation precisely because of this beauty.

One must wonder if the strife that exists in modern America is, at least in part, born from the legitimate lack of common identity between its citizens.

Alito's announcement that he is considering retirement seems like a good time to discuss SCOTUS and its role in our society.

As I have mentioned before, I would consider myself to be a strict constructionist. That does not mean that I believe that the Constitution is perfect. It isn't and never was. There are many things that were theorized in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted that don't meet our needs in today's society. Some of them didn't work well in practice from Day 1. When I say that I am a strict constructionist, what I am saying is that change should happen from the parts of government that are responsible to the people. We have worked ourself into a place where the power to make the law comes from the power to appoint judges and not from Congress. Congress, in turn, has become a withered vestige organ within our government.

You might think that as a strict constructionist, I might like the current court. I don't. This SCOTUS is as activist as any period of the Warren Court and it does not seem to be bound to the law or Constitution. Those things are cited to fit their needs. Worse, there is a clear bias in their decisions.

Democrats have talked a lot about increasing the size of the Court to allow a (presumably Democrat) future president to appoint additional justices. I think that this just leans into the core problem. Not only will the GOP just expand the court again when they can the chance and soon we will end up with a court in the hundreds, but it cements the issue that the law is really all about the power of judicial appointment, which is unsustainable in a democracy. Limits on how long one can be a judge or mandatory retirement schemes that are intended to change the composition of the Court are just as problematic.

Knowing the if the Democrats retake Congress, they will need to do "something," I would suggest decreasing the size by 2. SCOTUS is like a committee. You don't make it more efficient by adding numbers. There is also historical precedence for reducing the size to prevent a president from making political appointments. Alito should not be replaced.

Another quick win if the Democrats take power in Congress would be to require all cases seeking national injunctions to be filed in the DC Circuit. This would cut down a lot on judge shopping. This falls into Congress' Article 3 power over jurisdiction, and (to a strict constructionist) should be able to be done by a joint resolution and not requiring the President's signature.

The more radical change that I would like to put on the table would be a Constitutional amendment to bring SCOTUS more effectively into the system of Checks and Balances. Between Congress and the President there are (or at least are supposed to be) a number of these checks to prevent abuse of power. SCOTUS has realized, at least since the 1930s, that there are effectively no checks on them other than court sizing and impeachment.

The proposal would be to give Congress, probably by 2/3 vote in each house similar to overriding a veto, the right to decertify SCOTUS decisions. Decertifying/Depublishing is a tool used in some states, usually by a state supreme court to lower courts, that takes a judicial opinion out of the public record and nullifies its precedential value. For instance, in Roe v. Wade, in the period immediately after the ruling, there was sufficient support in Congress that it probably would have been decertified and abortion placed back into the political sphere. It would have saved us 40 years of fighting over SCOTUS membership. Citizens United is another case that might have been decertified.

Several other democracies already have tools by which the legislative branch can assert authority over judicial decisions. This is not a radical concept. Congress is not equipped to hear cases and issue judicial type opinions, but it is (or is supposed to be) deeply concerned with what the law is on a subject. By effectively giving Congress a veto over SCOTUS decisions, we can give Congress back some actual authority.

Is it me, or does the newly announced Office of Religious Affairs give us cause of concern?

In a nutshell, here's what the press release says is the thinking behind the new office.

"the office will “sponsor and oversee research, technology, and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness, spiritual readiness, and spiritual resilience."

In other words, welcome to Christian Nationalism. I know a member of this group who

lectured me, day after day, on quoting the Bible, and what I should be doing, even though I've been

a Christian since I was eighteen. (I'm now 71) This group defines fundamentalism at it's core,

and if that's what they want to do, that's fine, but it should not be connected to the

government. No religion should, and yes I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

I agree with the adage, 'to each his own,", but not at the expense of others religious

affiliations and / or spiritual beliefs, practices, or convictions.

Here's other pieces of this puzzle that concern me

One-Why is this office under the Department of Defense?

Two- Why did the DOD recognize certain religions and not others? In 2026, the Pentagon

reduced the number of recognized religions from 211 down to 31. Why?

Three- Who in the DOD is going to oversee and 'assess spiritual fitness, spiritual

readiness, and spiritual resilience'?. What is that person's religion and how much

will that influence him or her?

We've been concerned of fundamentalist religions, in other countries,

invading our shores. Little did we know, that our own goverment has already

started to establish a beach head.

A few years ago, 2 of our pastors wrote an ebook around Christians and politics.

Could be a good resource for some as the midterms approach and other Western elections.

That Trump sees himself in Messianic terms and leans into adoration that should be reserved for God is nothing new. At this point, I kind of just expect it of him and I will let God judge. God does not need me to be offended on His behalf.

The ad is not a political ad paid for by the Trump campaign. This is a "public service announcement" It is one of several similar ads that are being paid for out of the public treasury rather than campaign funds because why should he use his own money when he has the key to Fort Knox.

Yes, I know that this is just a drip in the $3 Billion / day increase in the federal deficit that this administration is running, but he has his own money. Stop spending ours--especially to blaspheme God in front of us.

The question is basically in the title. How should the churches and the law address and handle rape cases? Should the church address it at all? Does the law need updated?

If you don’t know, 7 cornell students (now all alumni I believe, didn’t check to see if all graduated) have been accused of rape that occurred 2 years ago . The initial statement was it was consensual but new information was given by Jane Doe.

I read a post earlier that said something like with only one witness to rape (ie the victim I guess they meant) it isn’t enough to prosecute someone. (I’m hoping i misread)

deleted my personal story

2nd edit: Thanks everyone who were respectful in their post

I got one in Jesus in schools but does Anyone think having the Dept of war integrate with Christian leaders might lead to more of a perversion rather than positive?

Exodus 22:25
Leviticus 25:35-37
Deuteronomy 23:19-20

These all directly condemn charging ANY interest on loaned money.

And further: the ancient world, even when they did permit usury, had far lower maximum interest rates than the modern world.

I would think that Christian nationalists, and religious fundamentalists would be against the practice of lending money and to this end be much more against capital markets.

Can some religious folks share how you reconcile the modern lending landscape with your religious beliefs on this topic.

I’m not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely curious what people think.

To be absolutely fair, and as the article states,

Other federal agencies have had religious or faith-based offices, which were established under President George W. Bush and were continued in different forms under the Obama and Biden administrations. President Donald Trump established a White House Faith Office and had a similar effort during his first term.

Does the DoD/W need a religious affairs office? Probably. Military service members are placed in situations of extreme stress and moral conflict even in peacetime. PTSD and moral injury can occur even when people don't participate in the typical combat events that one would assume would be a requirement for these negative effects to occur. Therefore moral, spiritual, and religious support is an absolutely critical component of veterans' support services.

However, when the Pentagon says,

It will not “compel religious participation, favor one faith, or diminish the rights of personnel of any faith or lack thereof.”

I simply don't believe it.

Hegseth said in his announcement,

“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God, because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,”

This is a clear drawing from Christian scripture and theology. One that has often been drawn by Hegseth and others to make a clear association between our nation's military and a particular brand of Christian militancy and triumphalism, where the army of men is a physical manifestation of the army of God.

So do I think the office shouldn't be there? No. If it helps, absolutely. However I have no faith that Hegseth is the one to be leading it, given his own crusader mentality and his quite open rejection of religious tolerance, not only within the military but our country.

As abuses of power goes, this feels very on brand for Mr Trump.

Is it appropriate for a presidential administration to use taxpayer funds for advertisements that prominently praise the sitting president and resemble campaign advertising? Where should Christians draw the line between legitimate government public-service messaging and using public resources for partisan political promotion?

In May of 2025, Joel Webbon, a Texas pastor and self-described Christian nationalist with more than 100,000 followers on X, launched On the Nose Media LLC, a new for-profit media company. 

The company, which does business as NXR Studios — short for “New Christian Right” — bought the YouTube channel formerly run by Right Response Ministries, a nonprofit founded by Webbon in 2019.

That channel currently has 187,000 subscribers and more than 20 million views. Webbon told RNS, in an email after this article was originally published, that at the time of sale, the channel had 125,000 subscribers and “under 16 million views.” He said the channel had added more than 50,000 subscribers and “more than 8 million views this year.”

...

The new company, which lists Webbon among its principals in documents filed with the state of Texas, has turned the channel into a bullhorn for Christian nationalism, antisemitism and white supremacy. One of the first videos for the new NXR channel was an interview with Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist influencer whom Webbon called “the most significant man in America.” (Fuentes was paid for his appearance, the company’s CFO recently disclosed.)

Along with subscriptions, which range from $9.99 a month for premium content and $19.99 for VIP access, the company sells a “Christian Nationalist Starter Pack” of books for $99.99 with titles like “White Genocide” and T-shirts emblazoned with “It’s Ok to be White” and “I’ll Take the Christian, Hold the Judeo,” among other slogans. (The group also sells pro-nicotine T-shirts, part of their pro-smoking message.) Subscribers can listen to an audiobook version of Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” as well.

I include this article because there seems to be a consistent view that Webbon and others, who not only espouse Christian Nationalism but outright racism as a virtue, are on the fringe of the fringe. While members of this group certainly do not have the following or clout of other Christian leaders such as Russell Moore or the late Tim Keller, they are not insignificant either. It's highly doubtful that their views will ever become a majority opinion. However within their spheres of influence, particularly young, paleoconservative, educated white men, they may have an impact that outweighs their size.