This is a very important trend. Christians, HEADS UP! The persecution of Christians and anyone who believes the bible is taking shape in a huge way. Just another sign that GOD IS COMING!!
Matthew 10
17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues.18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.Mark 13
“Take heed that no one deceives you. 6For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. 7But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; for such things must happen, but the end is not yet. 8For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines [a]and troubles. These are the beginnings of [b]sorrows.
9“But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will [c]be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, [d]or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 13And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who [e]endures to the end shall be saved.
Luke 21
10 Then said He unto them, “Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,
11 and great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines and pestilences. And fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, and you will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake.
13 And it shall turn to you to bear testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts not to meditate beforehand what ye shall answer.
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents and brethren and kinsfolk and friends, and some of you they shall cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated by all men for My name’s sake.
18But there shall not a hair of your head perish.
1.12M subscribers
1.74M subscribers
/ cbnnewsonline Is it possible to attend Catholic Mass and be branded a domestic terrorist? According to the FBI – yes! In a recent bombshell report, an FBI whistleblower exposes the agency’s tactics targeting those who attend mass, and you simply won’t believe all of the jaw-dropping details.
spacer
Understanding the threat of white Christian nationalism to American democracy today
FEB 8, 2023
Findings from the PRRI and Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey
Wednesday, February 08, 2023
10:00 AM – 11:30 AM EST
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC
20036
On February 8, Governance Studies at Brookings and the Public Religion Research Institute hosted the release of this new groundbreaking national survey. A panel of experts discussed the survey results and what they reveal about Christian nationalism, the state of American democracy, and the health of our society.
Viewers submitted questions for speakers by emailing events@brookings.edu or via Twitter at @BrookingsGov by using #ChristianNationalism.
spacer
In a recent national poll, researchers found that a majority of Republicans favor declaring the United States a Christian nation. In July, Marjorie Taylor Greene made waves on social media when she claimed Republicans should proudly embrace Christian nationalism. Politicians like Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano have increasingly used Christian nationalist rhetoric on the campaign trail, likely due to seeing how well it worked for Trump. It is clear more people are paying attention to and using the term; there were more tweets including “Christian nationalism” in July of 2022 than in all of 2021 combined.
But what is “Christian nationalism” and is it really worth the fuss?
- Strict moral traditionalism focused on sustaining social hierarchies.
- Comfort with authoritarian control—exercised by the “right” people—that includes the threat and use of violence.
- A desire for strict ethno-racial boundaries around who is a “true” American, where non-white and non-natural born citizens are viewed as unworthy of full participation in American civic life. (This is why many label it white Christian nationalism)
Christian nationalism centers and privileges the white, Christian experience. It believes the founders of the U.S. were conservative, white Christian men intent on founding a country where they and others like them could lead and flourish. Now, many Americans believe Christianity played an important role in the founding period or that the founding fathers were religious in one way or another. No reputable historian disputes these claims.
However, Christian nationalism moves well beyond such observations. It views this particular expression of Christianity as the undisputed framework of the U.S. and wants all levels of the government to preserve that framework.
This means that Christian nationalism does not want a government for the people by the people. It wants a government for a particular people, by a particular people. Namely, politically and religiously conservative white American Christians.
Survey after survey show between 15-20 percent of Americans strongly embrace the tenets of Christian nationalism, while another one-third support it, albeit less fervently.
Perhaps now we can sense the danger Christian nationalism poses to the U.S. if it sees our country as primarily for the benefit of a small subset of the overall population. A burgeoning collection of recent social science research provides evidence of the threats Christian nationalism poses and here I will identify three.
Christian nationalism is anti-democratic
Christian nationalism is about power. Power in the “right” hands to ensure the U.S. fulfills its covenant with God. However, democracy demands we share power. This places Christian nationalism at odds with democracy.
Americans who embrace Christian nationalism want to ensure the country does not turn its back on God. So when the political winds turn against stances they see as endorsed by God, they must do all they can to stand for what they see as the ultimate good. Candidates like Mastriano are willing to set aside democracy itself, ignoring the results of fair and free elections, to fulfill their interpretations of God’s commands.
This is why in one recent study we find that Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely to:
- Deny voter suppression is a problem
- Believe it is “too easy to vote” in the U.S.
- Believe voter fraud is rampant
- Support having to pass a civics test in order to vote
- Support laws that would disenfranchise anyone who committed certain crimes
And the national poll showing a majority of Republicans favor declaring the United States a Christian nation referenced above? It found Republicans support this stance despite recognizing such a move would be unconstitutional.
The anti-democratic propensities of Christian nationalism preserves the unequal access to the political process enjoyed by white, natural-born, conservative Christian citizens. Moves to expand who can pull the levers of power imperils this access. Therefore, Christian nationalism will discard democracy, if necessary.
Christian nationalism perpetuates racism
Various recent books demonstrate how white Christianity in the U.S. was a key part of the creation and preservation of racial hierarchies. White Christian nationalism served as the ideological mortar that allowed for the walls of racial division and inequality to be built, brick by brick. Today it perpetuates these systems.
Recent research shows Christian nationalism obscures the origins of racial inequality by allowing some to consider the current state of affairs as “just the way things are” or attributing racial inequality to personal or individual shortcomings of Black Americans. In fact, for white Americans, Christian nationalism is linked to affirming whites are the real victims. Christian nationalism is also directly linked to blaming Black Americans when police use deadly force.
According to the ideology of Christian nationalism, the negative experiences of racial and ethnic minorities in our country are mere distractions bent on sowing division.
Christian nationalism approves of political violence
Comfort with violence is a natural byproduct of Christian nationalism’s obsession with power. At times, the only way to get people to do what they should—as God commanded—is with the use (or threat) of force.
Embracing Christian nationalism is a leading predictor of which Americans believe the riots at the Capitol on January 6th were justified and that violence is acceptable in advancing political goals. Christian nationalism is also closely linked to believing true American patriots may have to resort to physical violence in order to save the U.S. These findings suggest that to a subset of the American population, January 6th was no mere aberration.
The next time we hear anyone confidently declare “true Americans” and “faithful Christians” should embrace Christian nationalism, or that the outcomes of elections are battles of biblical proportions of good versus evil, we can remember how Christian nationalism is anti-democratic, perpetuates racism, and approves of political violence.
These three threats are especially concerning when a national poll shows a majority of one political party favors declaring the U.S. a Christian nation.
It is vital we identify and help others recognize the threats Christian nationalism poses if we want to move closer to a country that truly exemplifies liberty and justice for all.spacer
Obama’s Army: ‘Christians Are Terrorists!’
November 14th, 2021.
Christians Are Extremists Like al-Qaeda, U.S. Army Taught Troops:
The Obama administration’s Department of Defense was caught training U.S. troops that Catholics, orthodox Jews, and evangelical Christians are to be considered “religious extremists,” even equating the major religions representing more than half of Americans with truly violent groups such as al-Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, and Hamas. After the explosive revelations hit the headlines, outrage promptly ensued. Now, critics are calling for an immediate public apology to the soldiers exposed to the hateful propaganda, as well as to the Christian and Jewish communities targeted in the presentation.
The latest scandal to hit the Obama administration and its handling of the military surrounds a so-called “Equal Opportunity” training course presented to U.S. Army Reserve forces in Pennsylvania. During the presentation, troops were subjected to a slideshow that included a segment on what was dubbed “religious extremism.” At the top of the list — the very first item — was “evangelical Christianity” in the United States. Also included were “ultra-Orthodox” Jews, Catholicism, fundamentalist Mormons, and “Islamophobia.”
Between evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews was the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamo-socialist group ruling over Egypt that Obama is supplying with advanced military weaponry including fighter jets and tanks — not to mention billions more in aid. Along with the Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Nation of Islam, a Filipino Islamist group, and Hamas were listed, along with Sunni Muslims in general. The U.S. government claims to be at war with some of the Islamist groups, while others are openly receiving American taxpayer dollars, weapons, and training from the administration.
House Dems voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for refusing to release the un-redacted Mueller report. The White House is moving to invoke executive privilege to counter leftists’ demands and Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s “blatant abuse of power.” Joining today’s show is European correspondent Dan Lyman discussing Europe’s populist riots and how the globalist scheme of the EU is falling apart.
OBAMA ACCUSES CHRISTIANS
President takes shot at Christianity, equating it to radical religious violence
Last Thursday, Feb. 5, President Barack Obama attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast. As many remember, this event has brought the President much grief over the past few years. A year ago in February, Dr. Ben Carson, a possible Republican candidate for President in 2016, persuasively dissected many of Obama’s policies during his address at the prayer breakfast.
Uproar — Barack Obama delivered controversial comments at yearly prayer breakfast. Photo provided
This year, the President brought much of the criticism on himself for his comments on ISIS and Christianity.
Despite assurances from the Obama administration that Al-Qaeda has been completely decimated, the strength of terrorist movements based on a Medieval interpretation of Islam has been clearly on display, whether it is the shootings at Charlie Hebdo or the attacks in Australia.
Just days before the president took the stage at the prayer breakfast, ISIS burned alive a Jordanian pilot. This presented an opportunity to deliver a strong foreign policy speech that could rally the world to action, much like George W. Bush’s remarks on the embers of the World Trade Center following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
However, this speech seemed to attack quite a different group than the one doing the killing.
The president began by criticizing ISIS, referring to them as a “death cult,” stating “we are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends.” Yet, the speech quickly turned in a different direction when the president shifted his attention to a very different belief system.
“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
The most glaring failure is the president’s disastrous attempt at moral equivalence. Every college student who has taken an entry-level history course has learned that you cannot simply take a prominent event from the past and equate it with one happening in the present.
Historical events do not take place in a vacuum, but they have long and extensive contexts that surround them.
Obama fell into the trap that so many before him have. He oversimplified a complex incident in the hope of making the point he wanted. Ross Douthat, in his article in the New York Times, writes “to be persuasive, a reckoning with history’s complexities has to actually reckon with them.”
Kevin DeYoung, pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, recently wrote an article challenging the conventional view of the crusades that drives Obama’s comparison. He summarizes the problem of making this moral equivalence beautifully.
“The point of this article is not to make us fans of the Crusades, but to make us more careful in our denunciation of them,” DeYoung wrote. “We fight for nation-states and democracy. They fought for religion and holy lands. Their reasons for war seem wrong to us, but no more than our reasons would seem wrong to them.”
The worst failure of the president’s speech was the missed opportunity. The president was speaking just days after a horrific act that shocked people across the globe. The world was ready to be called to action, to finally take the strong steps necessary to eliminate ISIS.
But instead, our president told the world that no one should cast the first stone. That is hardly the inspiring moral call to action the nations of the world needed to hear. This is another in a long line of foreign policy blunders, including the lack of attendance at the Charlie Hebdo march. Lincoln, Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan saw moments where bold leadership was needed and acted on them. Obama has wasted his moment.
SUTHERLAND is an opinion writer.
spacer
116th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 894
To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.
March 27, 2019
Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Coons, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, and Mr. Reed) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019”.
Congress finds the following:
(1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.
(2) On February 22, 2019, a Trump Administration United States Department of Justice official wrote in a New York Times op-ed that “white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement, at both the Federal and State levels, has been slow to respond. … Killings committed by individuals and groups associated with far-right extremist groups have risen significantly.”.
(3) An April 2017 Government Accountability Office report on the significant, lethal threat posed by domestic violent extremists explained that “[s]ince September 12, 2001, the number of fatalities caused by domestic violent extremists has ranged from 1 to 49 in a given year.” The report noted: “[F]atalities resulting from attacks by far right wing violent extremists have exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists in 10 of the 15 years, and were the same in 3 of the years since September 12, 2001. Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).”.
(4) An unclassified May 2017 joint intelligence bulletin from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security found that “white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent threat of lethal violence,” and that White supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement”.
(5) Fatal terrorist attacks by far-right-wing extremists include—
(A) the August 5, 2012, mass shooting at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, in which a White supremacist shot and killed 6 members of the gurdwara;
(B) the April 13, 2014, mass shooting at a Jewish community center and a Jewish assisted living facility in Overland Park, Kansas, in which a neo-Nazi shot and killed 3 civilians, including a 14-year-old teenager;
(C) the June 8, 2014, ambush in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which 2 supporters of the far-right-wing “patriot” movement shot and killed 2 police officers and a civilian;
(D) the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in which a White supremacist shot and killed 9 members of the church;
(E) the November 27, 2015, mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in which an anti-abortion extremist shot and killed a police officer and 2 civilians;
(F) the March 20, 2017, murder of an African-American man in New York City, allegedly committed by a White supremacist who reportedly traveled to New York “for the purpose of killing black men”;
(G) the May 26, 2017, attack in Portland, Oregon, in which a White supremacist allegedly murdered 2 men and injured a third after the men defended 2 young women whom the individual had targeted with anti-Muslim hate speech;
(H) the August 12, 2017, attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a White supremacist killed one and injured nineteen after driving his car through a crowd of individuals protesting a neo-Nazi rally, and of which former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute.”;
(I) the July 2018 murder of an African-American woman from Kansas City, Missouri, allegedly committed by a White supremacist who reportedly bragged about being a member of the Ku Klux Klan;
(J) the October 24, 2018, shooting in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, in which a White man allegedly murdered 2 African Americans at a grocery store after first attempting to enter a church with a predominantly African-American congregation during a service; and
(K) the October 27, 2018, mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in which a White nationalist allegedly shot and killed 11 members of the congregation.
(6) In November 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released its annual hate crime incident report, which found that in 2017, hate crimes increased by approximately 17 percent, including a 23-percent increase in religion-based hate crimes, an 18-percent increase in race-based crimes, and a 5-percent increase in crimes directed against LGBT individuals. The total number of reported hate crimes rose for the third consecutive year. The previous year’s report found that in 2016, hate crimes increased by almost 5 percent, including a 19-percent rise in hate crimes against American Muslims; additionally, of the hate crimes motivated by religious bias in 2016, 53 percent were anti-Semitic. Similarly, the report analyzing 2015 data found that hate crimes increased by 6 percent that year. Much of the 2015 increase came from a 66-percent rise in attacks on American Muslims and a 9-percent rise in attacks on American Jews. In all three reports, race-based crimes were most numerous, and those crimes most often targeted African Americans.
(7) On March 15, 2019, a White nationalist was arrested and charged with murder after allegedly killing 50 Muslim worshippers and injuring more than 40 in a massacre at the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. The alleged shooter posted a hate-filled, xenophobic manifesto that detailed his White nationalist ideology before the massacre. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern labeled the massacre a terrorist attack.
(8) In January 2017, a right-wing extremist who had expressed anti-Muslim views was charged with murder for allegedly killing 6 people and injuring 19 in a shooting rampage at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. It was the first-ever mass shooting at a mosque in North America, and Prime Minister Trudeau labeled it a terrorist attack.
(9) On February 15, 2019, Federal authorities arrested U.S. Coast Guard Lieutenant Christopher Paul Hasson, who was allegedly planning to kill a number of prominent journalists, professors, judges, and “leftists in general”. In court filings, prosecutors described Lieutenant Hasson as a “domestic terrorist” who in an email “identified himself as a White Nationalist for over 30 years and advocated for ‘focused violence’ in order to establish a white homeland.”.
In this Act—
(1) the term “Director” means the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(2) the term “domestic terrorism” has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, except that it does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by—
(A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189);
(B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); or
(C) a state sponsor of terrorism as determined by the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4605), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371);
(3) the term “Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee” means the committee within the Department of Justice tasked with assessing and sharing information about ongoing domestic terrorism threats;
(4) the term “hate crime incident” means an act described in section 245, 247, or 249 of title 18, United States Code, or in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631);
(5) the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Homeland Security; and
(6) the term “uniformed services” has the meaning given the term in section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 4. OFFICES TO COMBAT DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) Authorization Of Offices To Monitor, Analyze, Investigate, And Prosecute Domestic Terrorism.—
(1) DOMESTIC TERRORISM UNIT.—There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Unit in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security, which shall be responsible for monitoring and analyzing domestic terrorism activity.
(2) DOMESTIC TERRORISM OFFICE.—There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Office in the Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice—
(A) which shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting incidents of domestic terrorism; and
(B) which shall be headed by the Domestic Terrorism Counsel.
(3) DOMESTIC TERRORISM SECTION OF THE FBI.—There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Section within the Counterterrorism Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which shall be responsible for investigating domestic terrorism activity.
(4) STAFFING.—The Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Director shall each ensure that the offices authorized under this section in their respective agencies shall have adequate staff to perform the required duties.
(b) Joint Report On Domestic Terrorism.—
(1) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit a joint report authored by the domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) to—
(A) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(2) CONTENTS.—Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include—
(A) an assessment of the domestic terrorism threat posed by White supremacists and neo-Nazis, including White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the uniformed services; and
(B) (i) in the first report, an analysis of incidents or attempted incidents of domestic terrorism that have occurred in the United States since April 19, 1995; and
(ii) in each subsequent report, an analysis of incidents or attempted incidents of domestic terrorism that occurred in the United States during the preceding year; and
(C) a quantitative analysis of domestic terrorism for the preceding year, including the number of—
(i) domestic terrorism related assessments initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the number of assessments from each classification and subcategory;
(ii) domestic terrorism-related preliminary investigations initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the number of preliminary investigations from each classification and subcategory, and how many preliminary investigations resulted from assessments;
(iii) domestic terrorism-related full investigations initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the number of full investigations from each classification and subcategory, and how many full investigations resulted from preliminary investigations and assessments;
(iv) domestic terrorism-related incidents, including the number of incidents from each classification and subcategory, the number of deaths and injuries resulting from each incident, and a detailed explanation of each incident;
(v) Federal domestic terrorism-related arrests, including the number of arrests from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each arrest;
(vi) Federal domestic terrorism-related indictments, including the number of indictments from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each indictment;
(vii) Federal domestic terrorism-related prosecutions, including the number of incidents from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each prosecution;
(viii) Federal domestic terrorism-related convictions, including the number of convictions from each classification and subcategory, and a detailed explanation of each conviction; and
(ix) Federal domestic terrorism-related weapons recoveries, including the number of each type of weapon and the number of weapons from each classification and subcategory.
(3) HATE CRIMES.—In compiling a joint report under this subsection, the domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall, in consultation with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, review each hate crime incident reported during the preceding year to determine whether the incident also constitutes a domestic terrorism-related incident.
(4) CLASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE.—Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be—
(A) unclassified, to the greatest extent possible, with a classified annex only if necessary; and
(B) in the case of the unclassified portion of the report, posted on the public websites of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(c) Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee.—There is authorized a Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which shall—
(1) meet on a regular basis, and not less regularly than 4 times each year, to coordinate with United States Attorneys and other key public safety officials across the country to promote information sharing and ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism; and
(A) the Domestic Terrorism Counsel authorized under subsection (a)(2)(B);
(B) a United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney;
(C) a member of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice; and
(D) a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(d) Focus On Greatest Threats.—The domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall focus their limited resources on the most significant domestic terrorism threats, as determined by the number of domestic terrorism-related incidents from each category and subclassification in the joint report for the preceding year required under subsection (b).
SEC. 5. TRAINING TO COMBAT DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) Required Training And Resources.—The Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Director shall review the anti-terrorism training and resource programs of their respective agencies that are provided to Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, including the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Program that is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Department of Justice, and ensure that such programs include training and resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of law enforcement agencies. The domestic-terrorism training shall focus on the most significant domestic terrorism threats, as determined by the quantitative analysis in the joint report required under section 4(b).
(b) Requirement.—Any individual who provides domestic terrorism training required under this section shall have—
(1) expertise in domestic terrorism; and
(2) relevant academic, law enforcement, or other experience in matters related to domestic terrorism.
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and once each year thereafter, the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Director shall each submit an annual report to the committees of Congress described in section 4(b)(1) on the domestic terrorism training implemented by their respective agencies under this section, which shall include copies of all training materials used and the names and qualifications of the individuals who provide the training.
(2) CLASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE.—Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be—
(A) unclassified, to the greatest extent possible, with a classified annex only if necessary; and
(B) in the case of the unclassified portion of each report, posted on the public website of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
SEC. 6. COMBATTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM THROUGH JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCES AND FUSION CENTERS.
(a) In General.—The joint terrorism task forces of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and State, local, and regional fusion centers, as established under section 210A of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 124h), shall each, in coordination with the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee and the domestic terrorism offices authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 4(a) of this Act—
(1) share intelligence to address domestic terrorism activities;
(2) conduct an annual, intelligence-based assessment of domestic terrorism activities in their jurisdictions; and
(3) formulate and execute a plan to address and combat domestic terrorism activities in their jurisdictions.
(b) Requirement.—The activities required under subsection (a) shall focus on the most significant domestic terrorism threats, as determined by the number of domestic terrorism-related incidents from each category and subclassification in the joint report for the preceding year required under section 4(b).
SEC. 7. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, the Director, the Secretary, and the Secretary of Defense shall establish an interagency task force to combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
spacer
“God & Country,” which is produced by Rob Reiner, opens today. Earlier this week, I spoke to Partland via Zoom, curious to probe the troubling implications of his film. Below, Partland discusses his own religious background, why he thinks those on the left need to find common ground with moderate religious conservatives, and what’s up with Christian Nationalists’ insistence that Jesus was buff and tough.
Before we talk about “God & Country,” I wanted to ask about your own religious background.
I come from a secular, interfaith family. I was raised largely secularly because, at the time, my parents were from different faiths, and it caused a little bit of strife for the two families to figure out how to get together — so I think my parents felt like there was too much divisiveness. They wanted to raise the kids to find their own spiritual path and not consider it a deep part of their identity.
So did you dabble in different religions or philosophies?
I did, and I studied a lot. I grew up in a very conservative, largely Christian community — northeast United States, mostly mainline Protestants and some very traditional Catholics — and, honestly, I always felt a little left out. I wanted to understand what it was all about, and so I studied religion and Eastern philosophies and other things like that in college.
The interesting thing is that, in my adult life, I really have quite a lot of close friends and important filmmaking collaborators who are deeply devout people and who represent the best qualities of religious devotion — they do good works and are about kindness and spreading compassion. So when I was asked if I wanted to take on this project, I talked to them first — I definitely was looking to them for guidance, because I recognized that I had an outsider perspective.
One of my closest collaborators, when I said I was considering this project about Christian Nationalism, his total demeanor changed. He was stricken and I was worried — I didn’t know if I had said the wrong thing or maybe he felt like that this was a mistake. But when he gathered his composure, he said, “Thank you for taking this on. It’s tearing apart the country, it’s tearing apart the Church, and nobody’s talking about it.” That was a tremendous entry point for me to recognize that I was coming at it from the perspective of my concern for what it’s doing to American democracy — but I realized that the deeply devout are also really concerned about what it’s doing to their faith.
Did your friends and collaborators want to distance themselves from the extremism of Christian Nationalism: “Please don’t think we’re anything like those people just because we’re religious”?
Your question indirectly touches on the central difficulty, which is one of the things that helps Christian Nationalism to proliferate — it represents itself as being a faith and a faith-based movement. Americans deeply believe in religious liberty — if it’s a faith, Americans’ instinct is to not criticize it. Everybody is entitled to their own belief. The problem is it’s not really a faith — it’s a political movement masquerading as faith.
Every family is touched by it right now in America. I come from a very religiously diverse family — intermarriage happened on all levels of the previous generation — and so the families that comprise my first cousins are Presbyterian, Catholic, atheist, Jewish and Greek Orthodox. None of the cousins shares the [same] faith — everyone has grandparents who are of different faith than they. So this is an American story — this is, for people who appreciate what’s great about the American experiment, [what they] love about it. But, of course, as we become increasingly diverse, the grip on political and cultural power of a certain portion of society is on the decline, and that’s really what has caused this rise in white Christian Nationalism.
People who don’t have a lot of connections to the Christian-conservative portion of the population aren’t understanding the size and scope of what’s out there. I had an idea of what the ‘80s-era Christian right was about — the Moral Majority, et cetera, which was clearly a politicized movement right out of the gate. That was small enough that you could shrug it off. But as a documentarian, you’re trying to give people a measure of what experience you yourself had in delving into [a topic] — just give people a sense of the scale that we’re really talking about. This movement has grown by leaps and bounds, and as we sit here in 2024, it is still an ascendant movement. It’s still gaining in cultural and political power.
The little glimmer of hope in all this is that a tremendous number of American Christians are growing very discontent with the ways in which [Christian Nationalism] flies in the face of centuries of Christian teaching about what the underlying value system was supposed to be.
With a film like this, an obvious question is “Who is the intended audience?” I imagine if you tried to show the documentary in a conservative church, it would be dismissed as left-wing Hollywood propaganda.
Of course, the film is going to be attacked and discredited along those lines — it has been from the day that we put the trailer out. What cannot be discredited are the Christian-conservative bona fides of the voices in the film. All these people have written multiple books and a million columns and essays [about Christian Nationalism]. There’ve been tons of important works of journalism, but they’re just not making a dent. People, unless you’re particularly motivated, are not going to go out and read all of those books — but what a film can do is put you in that story emotionally, and hopefully that’s where the impact is.
When you’re interviewed by religious media for the film, do you ever have the urge to ask them, “Hey, can’t you all do more to fight this problem?”
I never feel like you need to do more. This is a democracy, and we all have to do what we can do, but I completely understand how difficult it is for devout people — Christians on the conservative end of the spectrum — to speak out against this movement. It’s an outgrowth of our hyper-partisanship — it’s an outgrowth of, some people
The religious people interviewed in the film are not a monolith. Still, I assume you don’t agree with everything they believe. How do you respond to viewers on the left who will think, “Yeah, I know these people are not Christian Nationals, but they’re still Christians, and I have issues with them for their opposition to abortion or gay marriage”?
The voices in the film are very diverse — I don’t agree with any one of them on [everything], and they don’t agree with each other on everything. One thing that unifies them is their concern about Christian Nationalism — the other thing is these are honest, informed, good-faith participants in our civic culture. I have so much admiration for all of them — it’s courageous to participate in something like this. They’re doing it because they [believe] that speaking out about this is necessary to preserve our democracy — and their faith, in some cases.
But I did hear that perspective from a lot of people: “Why would you put someone like that [in the film]? You know what he believes? You know what he’s tweeted about?” I think that’s just part of the bad route the culture has gone, which requires every examination of a topic to be in a sort of ideological orthodoxy — the people who vary on any point shouldn’t be included in there because they’re not part of “us.” I just think it’s a bunch of B.S. — you should collect the best ideas from wherever they are on the topics that you’re talking about.
Is it abortion? Do they just know that’s a losing argument with so many Christians?
That’s a very important reason — I don’t know if it’s the only reason.
There is a phalanx of political deliverables that have lined up on the religious right — that list has, in a sense, become the definition of white Christian Nationalism. [Because] the culture is really uncomfortable with people making alliances where there isn’t a perfect ideological alignment, it becomes politically difficult: “Wow, you’re aligning with this person, but this person is against gay marriage.” Both the left and the right in America have required absolute lockstep agreement on their important political points — [they] have been very wary to build coalitions out of people who agree on some things and disagree on other things. That’s been very bad for the political landscape — it’s contributed to this hyper-partisanship.
Of course, when you actually look at the political deliverables that we call Christian Nationalism, that doesn’t make a lot of sense that the faith community is aligned with these. This is a movement that purports to be in the name of Christ and Christian principles, [but] it’s come down on the side of preemptive war, has condoned torture, believes in the death penalty, is against restrictions on guns, is against environmental protections. You look at this list and you’re trying to find, “What does that have to do with ‘doing unto others’? What does that have to do with ‘turning the other cheek’? What does that have to do with ‘loving your enemies’? What does that have to do with ‘lifting up the least of these, putting the last first’? [But] the [electoral] value of the Christian right has made it essential to Republican politics, so it’s been forced to carry the water for a whole list of right-wing Republican ideas that don’t really fit that well within the Christian umbrella that they’re trying to put it under.
You argue in “God & Country” that our democracy is at stake. If that’s the case, do people on the left essentially have to get over themselves and find common cause with more moderate religious conservatives? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that is the sense I’m getting from our conversation.
One last thing: Obviously, “God & Country” is incredibly despairing and rage-inducing, but there’s one darkly comic section in which you examine Christian Nationalists’ desire to worship a super-buff, kick-ass Jesus. Over the years, Jesus has gotten more swole in their artwork. They seem hilariously obsessed with portraying him as hyper-masculine.
Well, I will say that section does get laughs in the theater. One of the primary interviews in the film is the preeminent scholar in this space, Kristin Kobes Du Mez. Her fabulous book, Jesus and John Wayne, is essentially all about this topic — she paints it very well.