Fasshold's find. Let us celebrate the collapse of Kremlin "influence" in international forums. Now let us go for the influence it has in GOP and USA
Are you listening M. Greene ? Are you getting it, M. Greene ? As of now only benighted "Christian Nationalists" like you are worshiping the false idol of Putin godhead and I and others are going to ruin that festung Europa style complex too
Christian nationalists like you, M. Greene are the only place where Putin is gaining and I and others are after that too.'
Now for that problem
quote
Tyler:?I believe that the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the United States today is Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism is antithetical to the constitutional ideal that belonging in American society is not predicated on what faith one practices or whether someone is religious at all. The political ideology that seeks to merge American and Christian identities is deeply embedded in American society and manifests itself in a number of different ways, some more obviously harmful than others. The most violent expressions, such as what we saw at the January 6 insurrection, get most of the attention. But the more subtle ones—like state legislative efforts to promote the teaching of the Bible in public schools or to require the posting of “In God We Trust” in public schools and other public places—are also dangerous in that they perpetuate the false narrative that to be a true American one must be Christian—and often a certain type of Christian. Christian nationalism undergirds a number of threats to religious freedom, including anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Semitism, and government-sponsored religion.
end of quote
Add on the monikor of MANDATORY PUTIN worship in the Christian nationalist catechism and we have a prefect set of Putin influence in America. And it will be met and destroyed
Next'
The Kherson blow out
quote
A former advisor to President Vladimir Putin compared the retreat of Russia's forces from Kherson to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the Russian military's mounting failures in the Ukraine war place the Kremlin in an increasingly precarious position.?
"The surrender of Kherson is the largest geopolitical defeat of Russia since the collapse of the USSR," Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political analyst and ex-advisor to Putin, said?on Telegram.
"The political consequences of this huge defeat will be really big," Markov added.
Putin once referred to the disintegration of the Soviet Union as?"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."
Other pro-Kremlin voices have also expressed dismay over the announced pullback
end of quote
Whereas here is the burn in international forums
Here is a summary of Putin forum defeats
quote
The General Assembly, the closest thing to a global parliament, has condemned Russia’s assault on Ukraine twice by overwhelming margins. In March, it demanded Russia’s unconditional withdrawal,?141-5. Last month, it rejected Russia’s attempted annexation plan,?143-5. The only countries that backed Russia were Belarus, Eritrea, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria.
Russia’s isolation will be dramatized next week by President Vladimir Putin’s?absence?from the Group of 20 summit, historically a favorite forum for Russia. Putin’s troubles with international organizations come as Russia’s army has been forced to retreat in Ukraine, most recently in this week’s withdrawal from the territory it occupied in Kherson.
The most significant diplomatic reversals have involved the internet. A year ago, the Kremlin was bidding to control cyberspace: A Russian candidate?was campaigning?to lead the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union, and Russia was drafting a U.N. cybersecurity plan that favored authoritarian control rather than openness.
end of quote
ONWARD FALSE CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS. I.e. in the Islamic sections of the Levant, the term Crusader is LOATHED to this very day, and for a reason which many Europeans still do not understand
The Crusaders used commercial enterprise to finance all out war on the Levant, as a MONEY making enterprise. And the Moslem forces in the Levant were the first to get it. And it is the same corruption today. It is the epitome of the " Kill a raghead for Jesus" madness which has blighted US relations with the rest of the world
On a side note the war with the Barbary pirates the then young USA, via Thomas Jefferson had has been fearfully mis represented. That was NOT Christian nationalism, but was a war against slavery in the Mediterranean?Sea?which was a centuries old blight. The US Marine corps song about the US attack on Tripoli was against brigadands being brought to heel
Needless to state, attacking Putin is the same thing. Ending the blight of piracy, and No. M,. Greene you do NOT get a chance to muddy the waters with that too
quote
Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom
An Interview With Amanda Tyler of the Baptist Joint Committee
Religious freedom expert Amanda Tyler, of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, discusses the latest court cases and trends in religious freedom.
Religious liberty is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, yet the meaning of this core American value has been debated throughout the nation’s history. Today, conflicts most often arise from?Christian nationalism, the anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone. At its core, this idea threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also leads to discrimination, and at times violence, against religious minorities and the nonreligious. Christian nationalism is also a contributing ideology in the religious right’s misuse of religious liberty as a rationale for circumventing laws and regulations aimed at protecting a pluralistic democracy, such as nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQI+ people, women, and religious minorities. These issues will only draw more attention in the years ahead, since the 6-3 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court?appears?eager?to hear more religious liberty cases advancing Christian nationalist arguments than in previous years.
Sign up for updates from the Religion and Faith team
Stay informed on the most pressing issues of our time.
SIGN UP
To learn more about the shifting landscape of religious liberty, the Center for American Progress conducted an interview over email in February 2022 with religious liberty expert Amanda Tyler. She is the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), which has a long history of championing religious freedom as both a democratic and a Baptist value. She is the co-host of BJC’s “Respecting Religion” podcast and a board member of the Center for Faith, Justice, and Reconciliation. A graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, Tyler previously worked for U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) as district director and as counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee.?This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Center for American Progress: What are the most pressing threats to religious freedom in the United States today?
Tyler:?I believe that the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the United States today is Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism is antithetical to the constitutional ideal that belonging in American society is not predicated on what faith one practices or whether someone is religious at all. The political ideology that seeks to merge American and Christian identities is deeply embedded in American society and manifests itself in a number of different ways, some more obviously harmful than others. The most violent expressions, such as what we saw at the January 6 insurrection, get most of the attention. But the more subtle ones—like state legislative efforts to promote the teaching of the Bible in public schools or to require the posting of “In God We Trust” in public schools and other public places—are also dangerous in that they perpetuate the false narrative that to be a true American one must be Christian—and often a certain type of Christian. Christian nationalism undergirds a number of threats to religious freedom, including anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Semitism, and government-sponsored religion.
ALSO READ
REPORT
A National Policy Blueprint To End White Supremacist Violence
Apr 21, 2021
Katrina Mulligan,?Brette Steele,?Simon Clark,?2 More
CAP: The country is still in the early stages of the new 6-3 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, but it’s clear that this new balance will have a major impact on how the court understands the First Amendment’s religious freedom clauses. How would you assess the current trajectory of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause?
Tyler:?As you note, the First Amendment protects religious freedom in two interconnected and necessary ways—by preventing government establishment of religion and by protecting the free exercise of religion from unnecessary government interference. In my view, both clauses are essential when it comes to protecting religious freedom. I’m concerned that the current Supreme Court?seems overly deferential?to free exercise claims of some, while not giving enough weight to Establishment Clause principles and how those principles protect religious freedom for all. Instead, the court has couched a number of its recent decisions in terms of trying to prevent discrimination against religion, interpreting Establishment Clause principles that gird against government-sponsored religion as “discrimination” in certain contexts.
CAP: The Supreme Court is considering a number of religious freedom cases this term, including?Ramirez v. Collier, which the court recently decided, as well as?Carson v. Makin,?Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, and?Shurtleff v. City of Boston. Do you see a common thread between what’s at stake in these cases? Why should Americans care about how the Supreme Court rules?
The most obvious common thread between the cases is that the court seems very engaged with religion. All Americans should care about these cases because how the court rules on religious freedom affects us all. I was pleased to see the court rule 8-to-1?in favor of?Mr. Ramirez, affirming strong free exercise protections in the death chamber—a principle that had been contested over the past few years?in prior cases?that were on the court’s emergency, or “shadow,” docket.
The Center for American Progress’ Maggie Siddiqi released a statement praising the ruling in?Ramirez v. Collier.
Carson v. Makin?is probably the most significant religious freedom case of the term. It involves government funding of religious education. The court seems poised to say that the Free Exercise Clause requires Maine to use its public education dollars to fund religious schools. What will be telling, of course, is how narrowly written the opinion is—whether it applies to the peculiar facts of the Maine public school system or whether the court is paving the way for much more government funding of religious schools and, therefore, religion. From my perspective, that is an incredibly troubling direction for religious freedom, particularly as the court has recently expanded the rights of religious schools to hire and fire their teachers without regard to nondiscrimination laws.
I’m concerned about the court’s decision to take the?Kennedy v. Bremerton?case, possibly as a move to reverse decades of case law that has prohibited government-sponsored prayer in the public school context. Those landmark Establishment Clause cases go all the way back to the 1960s and say that everyone’s religious freedom is protected when the government cannot tell children in public school how or when to pray. The court reinforced this principle in the football game context as recently as 2000 in?Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. That decision has been repeatedly maligned by those who want more government-sponsored religion, and perhaps this court is trying to use this case as a vehicle to change course. That would be a decidedly wrong direction for religious freedom.
Of all these cases,?Shurtleff v. Boston?seems like the least consequential given that the practice that is being challenged—Boston’s flag-raising ceremony—seems to be unique and not likely to be emulated in other places. The court took this case on free speech grounds, not religious grounds, so there isn’t likely to be a big change when it comes to how religious freedom is protected.
CAP: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a new spate of requests for religious exemptions from public health orders and laws. What impact is the pandemic having on the country’s understanding of religious freedom at large?
Tyler:?I think the divides in American society over the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate a long-running debate about the nature of freedom, including religious freedom. There are some who subscribe to a more individual rights notion of freedom—that any infringement on a personal liberty is an attack on freedom and must be opposed. That notion of freedom, however, does not work in a large society, particularly one as pluralistic as the United States.
The better path, I believe, is an understanding of freedom that takes into account the rights of everyone in our pluralistic democracy. In the introduction to her new book of cultural criticism titled?On Freedom, author Maggie Nelson writes that she “takes it as a given that our entire existence, including our freedoms and unfreedoms, is built upon a ‘we’ instead of an ‘I.’” This “we” version of freedom understands the need to protect individual rights as much as we can, while recognizing a limit when protecting one person’s freedom starts to infringe on another’s. Absolutist language when it comes to freedom might be elegantly simple, but it is not effective at ensuring a free society. I think this has played out in areas of the country that opposed public health measures in the short run, only to see the pandemic persist in ways that have continued to limit freedom and tragically taken a huge toll in the form of loss of human life and health.
There are some who subscribe to a more individual rights notion of freedom ... That notion of freedom, however, does not work in a large society, particularly one as pluralistic as the United States.
Amanda Tyler
The law is still being shaped in this area, so it is too early to definitively say how this will result in terms of changes made to the way religious freedom is viewed. Context is incredibly important in all of these cases.
CAP: The ideology of Christian nationalism presents a significant threat to religious freedom and religious pluralism. BJC’s Christians Against Christian Nationalism initiative is a unique and important campaign to address this. How do you define Christian nationalism, and why was this campaign a priority for BJC?
Tyler:?Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities. It heavily relies upon a mythological founding of the United States as a “Christian nation,” singled out for God’s special favor. It is not a religion, but it intersects with Christianity in its use of Christian symbols and language. But the “Christian” in Christian nationalism is more about identity than religion and carries with it assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, patriarchy, and militarism.
The 'Christian' in Christian nationalism is more about identity than religion and carries with it assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, patriarchy, and militarism.
Amanda Tyler
BJC first organized?Christians Against Christian Nationalism?in July 2019, when we and our ecumenical partners saw a rising tide of violent Christian nationalism and wanted to organize a resource specifically for Christians to learn more about it and take a stand against it. As we have learned more, I am convinced that Christian nationalism is the single biggest threat to religious freedom today. The best way to combat Christian nationalism is to recommit to foundational ideas of religious freedom for all—principles such as:
These are among the core values that are at the center of the initiative and part of a statement that anyone who identifies as a Christian is invited to sign.
We are concerned not only about the threat of Christian nationalism to American democracy but also its threat to Christianity itself. Christian nationalism, which merges political and religious authority, can quickly lead to idolatry and a confusion of allegiance. Patriotism is a laudable value and one that statement signers embrace as well. But when patriotism requires us to sacrifice our religious convictions, then it has ceased to be patriotism and has become nationalism. BJC’s unique voice as a faith-based advocacy group for everyone’s religious freedom allowed us to lead this initiative, collecting resources for Christians to interrogate Christian nationalism in their own communities and congregations. Christians, particularly white Christians, have a special responsibility and opportunity to understand and dismantle Christian nationalism.
[BJC is] concerned not only about the threat of Christian nationalism to American democracy but also its threat to Christianity itself.
Amanda Tyler
CAP: It’s not just the courts where religious freedom battles play out. The legislative and the executive branches of government each have roles to play in defending religious freedom. What opportunities does BJC see to advance religious freedom through its engagement with Congress and the Biden administration?
Tyler:?BJC has long advocated for religious freedom in Congress and with the executive branch. The Biden administration is keenly aware of religious freedom issues and benefits greatly from the expertise of?Melissa Rogers, who serves as executive director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and as senior director for faith and public policy on the Domestic Policy Council. In its first year, the Biden administration made good strides in reversing some of the policies of the Trump administration that harmed religious freedom, including the Muslim and African travel ban.
One particular policy that often flies under the radar has to do with protection of Indigenous sacred lands. Too often, our Indigenous neighbors are expected to sacrifice their holy places to satisfy capitalism’s greed. BJC?is working to protect Chi’chil Bildagoteel, loosely translated as “Oak Flat” in English, which is sacred to the San Carlos Apache and other Western tribes. The current plan to mine the low-grade copper deposit under Chi’chil Bildagoteel won’t make America more secure or fill American coffers, but it will permanently destroy a sacred sanctuary and encumber already scarce water resources in Arizona. We are continuing to pressure the administration and advocate in Congress for passage of the Save Oak Flat Act.
CAP: Baptists have a long history of advocating for religious freedom. How has your faith shaped your own career??
Tyler:?I am Baptist, and it was through the church that I first encountered BJC as a college student. I immediately connected with the mission of BJC, which is grounded in theology and expressed in robust advocacy for constitutional principles that are meant to protect everyone’s religious freedom. That “we” concept of freedom I referenced earlier is expressed beautifully in the Bible by Paul in his ode to freedom—his letter to the Galatians:
It is absolutely clear that God has called you to a free life. Just make sure that you don’t use this freedom as an excuse to do whatever you want to do and destroy your freedom. Rather, use your freedom to serve one another in love; that’s how freedom grows. For everything we know about God’s Word is summed up in a single sentence: Love others as you love yourself. That’s an act of true freedom. (Galatians 5:13-14,?The Message)
This scripture is a touchpoint for my life and for my work at BJC.
Conclusion
With multiple U.S. Supreme Court rulings coming soon, the future of religious liberty in the United States is uncertain. But defense of the separation of church and state must continue no matter what direction the court takes. The country’s founding promise of religious freedom requires everyone to do their part to defend it today. Thankfully, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and many of CAP’s other faith-based partners are doing just that.
The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available?here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.
AUTHORS
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons
Fellow, Religion and Faith
Maggie Siddiqi
Senior Director, Religion and Faith
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Authoritarian Regimes Have More Progressive Abortion Policies Than Some U.S. States
Jul 8, 2022
Alexandra Schmitt,?Osub Ahmed,?Elyssa Spitzer,?1 More
How Americans Can Fight Back Against a Radical Supreme Court Majority
Jun 30, 2022
The Supreme Court’s Extreme Majority Risks Turning Back the Clock on Decades of Progress and Undermining Our Democracy
Jun 13, 2022
22 Faith Leaders To Watch in 2022
Mar 31, 2022
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons,?Maggie Siddiqi
InProgress
Stay informed on the most pressing issues of our time.
end of quote
Now for the Kherson blow out
领英推荐
quote
Ex-Putin advisor compares Kherson retreat in Ukraine to the collapse of the Soviet Union, warning of 'really big' consequences
John Haltiwanger?20 hours ago
A former advisor to President Vladimir Putin compared the retreat of Russia's forces from Kherson to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the Russian military's mounting failures in the Ukraine war place the Kremlin in an increasingly precarious position.?
"The surrender of Kherson is the largest geopolitical defeat of Russia since the collapse of the USSR," Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political analyst and ex-advisor to Putin, said?on Telegram.
"The political consequences of this huge defeat will be really big," Markov added.
Putin once referred to the disintegration of the Soviet Union as?"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."
Other pro-Kremlin voices have also expressed dismay over the announced pullback.?
"The Russian information space predictably reacted to the announcement of the withdrawal with varying degrees of ire and concern," an assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said. "Russian sources also emphasized that this is a major defeat for Russian forces because they are losing territory that Russia annexed and claims as its own."
But ISW also noted that prominent voices in the Russian military blogger space also portrayed the decision as a necessary one to preserve the safety of Russia's troops.?
Russia's humiliating pullback from Kherson comes amid sustained pressure from Ukrainian forces, who have made gradual progress regaining territory as part of a major counteroffensive launched in recent months. They've pushed hard to retake Kherson.
Kherson was the first major city and the only regional capital captured by Russia since it launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine in late February. It's located in one of the four regions Putin illegally annexed in late September.
The retreat from Kherson is yet another reminder that Russia's forces do not fully occupy or control the Ukrainian regions Putin now claims as part of Russian territory.?The withdrawal from the city also undermines the Kremlin's propaganda and the narrative they've presented to the Russian people that the war is going well.?
Putin was not present for a?televised announcement of the withdrawal?on Wednesday featuring his defense minister and Russia's top commander in Ukraine, perhaps as an effort to distance himself from the situation.?
Ukrainian officials have expressed skepticism over the Kherson withdrawal,?with some suggesting it's a trap, but US Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that?"we're seeing the beginnings"?of the Russian withdrawal from Kherson.?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/10/russia-putin-ukraine-un-united-nations/?utm_source=reddit.com
Opinion??Russia is in retreat in every major international forum
Columnist
|
Follow
November 10, 2022 at 6:08 p.m. EST
Listen
4 min
Comment
517
Add to your saved stories
Save
Gift?Article
Share
As Russia’s military troubles mount in Ukraine, it’s also becoming more isolated internationally as organizations affiliated with the United Nations purge Moscow’s representatives from leadership positions.
This rollback of Russian power and prestige at the United Nations has accelerated in recent months. It’s another example of the way the Ukraine war is realigning the international system into a small bloc supporting the Kremlin and a larger group backing the United States and its broad coalition of allies.
The General Assembly, the closest thing to a global parliament, has condemned Russia’s assault on Ukraine twice by overwhelming margins. In March, it demanded Russia’s unconditional withdrawal,?141-5. Last month, it rejected Russia’s attempted annexation plan,?143-5. The only countries that backed Russia were Belarus, Eritrea, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria.
Russia’s isolation will be dramatized next week by President Vladimir Putin’s?absence?from the Group of 20 summit, historically a favorite forum for Russia. Putin’s troubles with international organizations come as Russia’s army has been forced to retreat in Ukraine, most recently in this week’s withdrawal from the territory it occupied in Kherson.
The most significant diplomatic reversals have involved the internet. A year ago, the Kremlin was bidding to control cyberspace: A Russian candidate?was campaigning?to lead the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union, and Russia was drafting a U.N. cybersecurity plan that favored authoritarian control rather than openness.
David Ignatius on the war in Ukraine
End of carousel
Moscow’s effort to seize the high ground of technology has failed miserably. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, an American, was?elected?secretary-general of the ITU in September, winning 139-25. A challenge from Rashid Ismailov, a Russian former deputy minister of communications,?collapsed?after the invasion of Ukraine.
Advertisement
The ITU drubbing extended to components of the regulatory body. At the ITU’s September-October meeting in Bucharest, Russia?failed to win a seat?on the group’s 48-member council, its 12-member Radio Regulations Board or any of its three oversight bureaus. It was a shutout for a country that last year?boasted?it would “develop and implement legal norms and standards in the field of internet governance.”
Russia’s other internet initiatives have also stalled. Moscow’s plan to write a new U.N. pact?to replace?the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is on hold. The Moscow daily Kommersant noted this week that its proposal to continue overseeing internet issues through a Russian-backed “Open Ended Working Group” was supported by only 12 nations, while a U.S.-backed alternative had 50 sponsors.
The spreading stain of the Ukraine invasion has affected Russia’s involvement in other U.N. activities. In April, the General Assembly?voted?to suspend it from the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. That same month, Russian candidates?were rejected?for seats on four organizations of the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council, and Russia?was suspended?from the United Nations’ World Tourism Organization.
Advertisement
Opinion writers on the war in Ukraine
Post Opinions provides commentary on the war in Ukraine from columnists with expertise in foreign policy, voices on the ground in Ukraine and more.
Columnist?David Ignatius?covers foreign affairs. His columns have?broken news?on new developments around the war. He also?answers questions from readers. Sign up to?follow him.
Iuliia Mendel, a former press secretary for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, writes guest opinions from inside Ukraine. She has written about?trauma, Ukraine’s “women warriors” and what it’s like for her?fiance to go off to war.
Columnist?Fareed Zakaria?covers foreign affairs. His columns have reviewed?the West’s strategy?in Ukraine. Sign up to?follow him.
Nataliya Gumenyuk, a Ukrainian author and journalist specializing in foreign affairs, writes guest opinions about the mood inside Ukraine. She has written about?Ukrainians stepping up, the war’s?tremendous losses?and?rejoicing after a successful counteroffensive.
Columnist?Josh Rogin?covers foreign policy and national security. His columns have explored the?geopolitical ramifications?of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. Sign up to?follow him.
Columnist?Max Boot?covers national security. His columns have encouraged the West to?continue its support for Ukraine’s resistance. Sign up to?follow him.
1/7
End of carousel
Even the skies are unfriendly. Last month, Russia?lost an election?to retain its seat on the governing council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which oversees global air travel. A Ukrainian ambassador argued that Russia should be punished for bombing Ukraine’s civilian airports and using its airspace as a free-fire zone.
These U.N. bodies might seem trivial. But much of the world’s regulation and standard-setting takes place in these obscure organizations, and they have often been forums for Russian propaganda and manipulation. The Ukraine war is turning these venues into no-go zones for Russian diplomats. Russia still has its veto in the Security Council — and its nuclear arsenal. But much of its other power, hard and soft, is decaying.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,?said?during a visit to Kyiv this week: “Is it realistic to hold Russia accountable? Yes, it is. … Russia has heard loudly and clearly from the world that what they’re doing is unacceptable, and while they have the veto power, that veto power is not shielding them from condemnation.”
The Russian military has made some stunning mistakes on the battlefield — in Kyiv, Kharkiv and now Kherson. But Russia’s diplomats may have fared even worse. Russia is in retreat in every major international forum. Putin imagined this war would bring him greater global influence. It has instead been an epic disaster.