Well obviously. He revealed his cards when he admitted before walking out that he won't respect Abdul's right to freedom of religion, despite the fact that Abdul respects his.

I only saw the first 2.5 minutes previously, but the finish is baller. El-Sayed has some swagger

I hope enough Michiganders agree with me Nov 3

I agree the response is so good that it feels scripted, but the truth is probably that he has it kind of scripted in his head. He's probably dealt with similar questions or attacks many many times so by now it's not surprising that he has this type of immaculate answer to it ready to deliver.

This particular abomination/identity crisis seems to creep in when people are trying to sound sophisticated, and i just can't with it.

Holy masterclass batman. I'm not sure Tommy realized just how much he got schooled in that moment.

This guy almost certainly came in from out of state, too: worked for Josh Hawley of Missouri, works for a PAC belonging to ex-governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, hard to believe he actually lives in Michigan, much less in Caro, which appears to be a rural mid-state town.

One remembers all those accusations from the right-wing that people showing up at protests are bused in, not local, etc.

Yet here's this Missouri/Louisiana linked chud showing up out of nowhere at a Caro, Michigan town hall, run by a candidate for Senate that is not even of his own party. Hmmm.

I wanna know who that other guy who left with him is. The one he walked out with.

Not that you or anyone here would know, it's just that no one participates in a walk of shame unless they have to, and it's pretty clear they were there together.

jesus was all in. the most offensive thing he ever did was declare 'the scriptures are fulfilled'

about the evolution of English but I will go to my grave bristling at this usage. Luckily for all y'all,

wtf is all y'all?

Not by name, no.

The video is in the linked article. Abdul asked Tommy around the 30 second mark if Tommy disavows the Muslim Brotherhood as a reflexive response to Tommy's own question, and at 4:20 he asked Tommy if, as a Christian, Tommy disavows "any attempt to read Christian doctrine into the laws of our country?" and of course Tommy declines.

But Abdul never asks Tommy if he disavows White Christian Nationalism.

Also, I recognize Josh Hawley’s name from 2021; pretty sure he was one of the first few congresspeople to excuse trump’s incitement of the insurrection.

It was more than that; he was there inciting the crowd:

Josh Hawley seen fleeing pro-Trump mob he ‘riled up’ with fist salute in newly released Jan. 6 footage -- NBC News, July 21, 2022

They've been doing this more and more

I mean who did Nat-C that coming?

If you trace all the money going into America Next PAC, I bet there's a good chance we'd find Russian money. So odds are this guy was a Russian paid actor.

His ilk usually don’t age past the baseball cap age mentally.

Well, you know... you / y'all / all y'all
🙂

Yeah, but The News won't cover that part.

The Founding Fathers vs. the Christian Nationalist

The most revealing way to stage this debate is to put the American founders in a room with a modern Christian nationalist and ask one question:

Does America belong to Christianity, or does Christianity belong to the freedom of Americans?

That distinction gets straight to the constitutional problem. The founders were not a unified group of secular liberals, and many believed Christianity was important to public morality. But they disagreed about religious authority, political power, and what kind of republic America should become.

Imagine a debate in Philadelphia, circa 1787, with the Constitution on the table.

Act I: The debate begins

James Madison: The constitutionalist

“On what authority do you claim the right to govern the conscience of your neighbor?”

Madison would attack the political structure of Christian nationalism before arguing about theology. In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, he argued that religious belief must arise from conviction, not coercion, and that government has no legitimate authority to dictate religious obligations.

His challenge would be straightforward: if the state can privilege your denomination today, what prevents a rival denomination from taking control tomorrow?

His verdict: A religious majority does not acquire unlimited political authority simply by being a majority.

Thomas Jefferson: The radical skeptic

“Can a government compel belief without corrupting both liberty and religion?”

Jefferson would be particularly hostile to religious tests and state-sponsored orthodoxy. His Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, enacted in 1786, rejected compulsory religious observance and the use of civil rights as rewards for religious conformity.

He would ask the Christian nationalist whether a citizen who rejects Christianity can remain an equal citizen, hold office, and criticize the government without being treated as an enemy of the nation.

If the answer were no, Jefferson would see the project as a revival of the very religious coercion that revolutionary Americans had reason to oppose.

His verdict: The government has no business grading citizens by the contents of their souls.

George Washington: The pragmatic unifier

“A government must unite citizens who do not worship alike.”

Washington was more publicly comfortable with religious language than Jefferson, but his conception of American citizenship was not supposed to depend on belonging to the dominant faith.

In his 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, Washington declared that citizens possessed equal liberty of conscience and equal civil standing. He rejected the notion that religious minorities merely enjoyed the majority's gracious permission to exist.

Washington's concern would be political stability: a republic divided into religious insiders and outsiders risks turning disagreement over doctrine into a struggle for power.

His verdict: Religious liberty is a foundation of national unity, not a concession granted by Christians to everyone else.

John Adams: The moral realist

“A constitution is made for a moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Adams, in his 1798 address to the Massachusetts militia, made that famous observation about constitutional government and morality. He believed republican institutions required public virtue, but that is not the same as giving one religious movement a monopoly on national identity.

Adams also signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which included a declaration that the American government was not founded on the Christian religion. The wording's diplomatic context matters, but the treaty is still significant evidence against treating Christianity as the formal constitutional basis of the federal government

His verdict: Moral character matters enormously. Whether the state should enforce a particular theology is a different question.

Act II: The Christian nationalist makes the case

Imagine a modern Christian nationalist answering the founders:

“America's founders believed in God. The Declaration invokes a Creator. Christian moral principles shaped our laws and culture. A nation cannot survive without a moral foundation, and abandoning Christianity means abandoning the values that made America great.”

This argument should not be dismissed as entirely fabricated. Religion genuinely influenced early American political culture, and the founders disagreed about theology, religious practice, and the proper role of faith in public life. Some were orthodox Christians; others held more skeptical or unconventional beliefs.

But the nationalist's argument makes a crucial leap:

• Historical influence: Christianity helped shape American culture.
• Moral argument: Christian teachings can contribute to public morality.
• Constitutional claim: The American state should privilege Christianity.
• Exclusionary claim: Full American identity or citizenship should depend on Christian affiliation.

The first two propositions do not logically establish the last two. A tradition can influence a country's history without acquiring a perpetual right to govern it.

The founders would not all agree on every part of that rebuttal. But Madison and Jefferson, in particular, would have powerful objections to turning religious influence into legal privilege.

Act III: The argument becomes personal

Here is a dramatization of how the exchange might unfold. These are invented lines, not historical quotations, but the arguments are grounded in the founders' documented positions.

IMAGINED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Christian Nationalist: “Our laws should reflect the Christian values that built this country.”

Madison: “Which Christian values? And whose interpretation shall have the force of law? The Baptist, the Anglican, the Presbyterian? You have not solved the problem of religious division. You have merely appointed one faction to settle it.”

Christian Nationalist: “But the majority is Christian. Surely democracy means the majority gets to decide.”

Jefferson: “A majority may elect representatives. It does not thereby acquire ownership of another person's conscience.”

Christian Nationalist: “You cannot build a nation without shared moral principles.”

Adams: “That is a serious argument for civic virtue. It is not yet an argument for a state church. Demonstrate that religious uniformity is necessary, rather than merely familiar.”

Christian Nationalist: “Without Christianity, America loses its identity.”

Washington: “A country whose citizens must profess the correct faith to enjoy equal standing has confused national unity with religious conformity.”

Christian Nationalist: “Then you would allow people who reject Christianity to influence America's future?”

Madison: “If you deny them that right because of their beliefs, you have abandoned the principle of equal liberty you claim to defend.”

The room falls silent. Someone asks whether the delegates can return to the question of federal taxation. The eighteenth century, like every century, has paperwork.

Act IV: The founders' strongest arguments against Christian nationalism

Three arguments would likely dominate the debate.

1. The problem of political legitimacy

If government derives its authority from the people, how can it legitimately subordinate citizens because they reject a particular religious doctrine?

The Declaration of Independence invokes a Creator and natural rights. It does not establish that Christian churches possess governing authority. Moving from the proposition that rights have a divine source to the proposition that a particular religious movement should control the state requires an additional argument.

2. The problem of minority rights

Madison's concern was not simply that religious persecution is unpleasant. It was that political power can be used to violate rights even when the majority believes it is acting correctly.

His argument applies equally to a Christian majority discriminating against atheists, a Catholic government discriminating against Protestants, or a secular government discriminating against Christians. The principle is symmetrical: religious liberty cannot depend on who happens to hold power.

(ctd...)

(...ctd)

1. The problem of precedent

Once the government acquires the power to define the nation's officially favored faith, what limits that power?

Madison explicitly warned that a power capable of establishing Christianity could also establish one Christian sect over another. The danger is institutional, not merely theological: the machinery of religious privilege can be inherited by whoever next controls the state.

Act V: The uncomfortable historical complication
It would be historically dishonest to portray every founder as a modern secular pluralist. Several states retained religious establishments or religious qualifications into the early republic. Many founders used providential language, believed religion encouraged virtue, and held views of religious equality that fell far short of modern standards. The republic they created also excluded many people from full political participation.

There is a second distinction worth preserving: a religiously influenced republic is not the same thing as a republic constitutionally subordinated to religion.

The federal Constitution prohibits religious tests for federal office in Article VI. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion and protects its free exercise. These provisions do not require citizens to keep religious convictions out of politics. They constrain the government's authority over religious belief and practice.

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli offers additional evidence. Its famous declaration that the American government was not founded on the Christian religion was part of a diplomatic agreement, and historians debate how broadly to interpret it. It should not be treated as proof that every founder was secular.

That nuance actually strengthens the central argument. You do not need to claim that the founders were atheists, that Christianity had no influence, or that they anticipated every modern conception of equality.

You need only distinguish between their religious beliefs and the constitutional powers they authorized.
The final verdict
If we asked the founders to vote on Christian nationalism as a single, clearly defined political doctrine, we would be imposing a modern label on a divided historical group. Their answers would depend on what the doctrine demanded.

• If it meant Christians participating freely in politics, defending their moral convictions, and persuading fellow citizens, many founders would have had no objection.
• If it meant recognizing Christianity's historical influence on American culture, many would have agreed, although they would disagree about the significance of that history.
• If it meant granting Christians superior citizenship, imposing religious conformity, or making adherence to Christian doctrine a condition of legitimate political participation, Madison and Jefferson would have particularly forceful objections. Washington's statements on equal liberty of conscience would also be difficult to reconcile with such a system.
  The deepest question is not whether Christianity influenced America. It plainly did.

It is whether a political community can claim to defend freedom while reserving the authority to decide which citizens possess the correct ultimate beliefs.

The strongest Madisonian answer would be that a government established to protect liberty cannot make the liberty of conscience conditional on agreeing with the majority's theology.

And the most ironic possibility is that a movement claiming to restore the founders' legacy could undermine one of their most important institutional achievements: a constitutional government whose legitimacy does not depend on establishing a single religious orthodoxy.

That is the argument worth having, rather than the historically weaker shouting match over whether the founders were all Christians or all secularists.

source I asked GPT "express to me how the founding fathers of the usa might debate the concept of a Christian Nationalist?"

Ps.
I really do not enjoy using LLM's but if they could be used to take down the heritage foundation, then meh

shrugs

AI;DR

The scene was embarrassing enough for the prick already. The fact that it was organized and planned, and he still had no plan whatsoever for what to do if El-Sayed simply said "Yes, I do condemn the Muslim Brotherhood" really goes to show how fucking weird and disconnected from reality these people are.

Thanks for sharing - that's good to know!

The GOP operative wasn't willing to disavow militant Christians, so he didn't think El-Sayed would disavow militant Muslims.

What a dumbass.

I appreciate your comment, because it points out that what I thought was unhinged fan fiction that I should skip is actually unhinged fan fiction written by a word-prediction machine, and therefore even less deserving of my time and attention.

"All y'all" is actually a really interesting linguistic object. It draws a grammaticalized contrast between a 2nd person plural exclusive and a 2nd person plural inclusive, which isn't really a thing in English elsewhere, even back in Old English when it had more complex morphology.

That is to say, "y'all" is a second person plural, and it basically means "you guys", or "y'inz" if you're from that part of Pennsylvania. It picks out a specific group of people that you're talking directly to.

But, what if I'm talking to a crowd, and I want to draw a distinction between some people among them that I've already addressed, versus the group in its entirety, which I would now like to address?

This is where "all y'all" comes in. It essentially specifies that everyone is being addressed, and not just a specific subset of that group.

So you'll get examples like "Y'all (usually with a pointing motion) need to rethink your design, but all y'all need to listen better".

@fletcher_bosom@lemmy.world likely intended "all y'all" to have a specifically inclusive meaning here for a few different types of groups that could be distinguished among the readers of their comment. Basically, "not just y'all (the linguists in the group who are irked by their prescriptiveness), but all y'all (everyone else as well, including those who aren't irked), are lucky that they have one foot in the grave".

"All y'all" was necessary here because if they'd just said "y'all" it could easily have been misinterpreted as just the educated linguists being lucky, and they wanted to emphasize that their comment wasn't being snide toward educated people, but rather self-deprecating. "All y'all" accomplishes that perfectly (for those who have it in their grammars).

"All y'all" is one of my favorite constructions in (dialectal) English, though it is hilariously ironic, and kinda demonstrative of my general point, to see such a non-standard feature in a comment arguing in favor of prescriptive grammar rules!

(Also, if you think "all y'all" is weird, wait 'til you see singular y'all!)

It's a specific tactic that politicians use. "Tommy" sounds more approachable than "Tom" or "Thomas."

This is why we know Charles Schumer as "Chuck" and Addison McConnell III as "Mitch." The folksy name feels friendlier and therefore gets more votes.

@fletcher_bosom@lemmy.world was just having a little fun 🙃

Makes sense. I'm sure the Republicans will run Adolphy next election.

Actually it helped others to not read your slop.

How does it feel to outsource your thinking to a statistical parrot that destroys the environment?

Do better.

Fuck off with your ai slop.

Dude got wrecked publicly, so he did us all a solid.