“Christ is king”

[morqthana]

I found it was an interesting but anodyne article which, amongst things, warned about the resurgence of anti-Semitism on the far right and the Christian right in the USA. I was then bemused to find that an article warning about the resurgence of anti-Semitism had been reported by so many posters. All I have been asking is why it was reported. Surely, articles warning about the resurgence of anti-Semitism should be encouraged.

You would think so.

But the article was posted by Odds, which was all the excuse the Adhom Cowboys here needed to organise a lynching.

 

[morqthana]

Talking to your other user name is beyond pathetic!!

I'm not his "other user name".

STOP LYING.

 

[morqthana]

You and the div @morqthana are the same poster.

STOP LYING!

 

[morqthana]

1. Political figures posting it on social media


Some conservative politicians and activists posted “Christ is King” on social media during political debates. Critics said the posts sometimes appeared right after arguments about Jewish groups or Israel, which made people question the intent.

Supporters said they were just expressing Christian faith, while critics argued it could function as a dog whistle in certain contexts.

If that's the case, then surely warning about the rise of antisemitism in the US Christian right using the term is a good thing?

2. The Candace Owens controversy

In 2024, commentator Candace Owens repeatedly posted “Christ is King” online during disputes involving Jewish commentators and debates about Israel.

Some critics said she was using the phrase to antagonize Jewish critics, while she insisted she was simply affirming her Christianity.

The dispute became big enough that it spilled into arguments with conservative media figures at The Daily Wire.

Then surely posting an article which reported

"A member of the federal Religious Liberty Commission has been ousted after a hearing this week that featured tense exchanges on the definition of antisemitism. The ousted member, Carrie Prejean Boller, had defended prominent commentator Candace Owens, who routinely shares antisemitic conspiracy theories." is a good thing?

3. Online meme campaigns

Around the same period, researchers from the Network Contagion Research Institute linked spikes in the phrase to coordinated online meme activity where users spammed “Christ is King” under posts by Jewish public figures.

The researchers said some posts included antisemitic imagery or conspiracies, which is why they flagged it.

If that's the case, then surely warning about the rise of antisemitism in the US Christian right using the term is a good thing?

4. The divide inside the political right

The issue also highlighted a split among conservatives:

• Some pro-Israel conservatives argued the phrase was being weaponized by fringe antisemitic groups.
• Others argued the criticism was an attempt to police Christian speech.

If that's the case, then surely warning about the rise of antisemitism in the US Christian right using the term is a good thing?

 

[MNW67]

You would think so.

But the article was posted by Odds, which was all the excuse the Adhom Cowboys here needed to organise a lynching.

I have actually been trying to flip it and think of it from the other side, to see if I can get my head around why this particular article caused such a strong reaction amongst so many posters. It has actually been very difficult for me, being such an objective and rational person who enjoys an open debate. But this is what I have come up with:

Consider for a moment that there is a particular poster on here who has, rightly or wrongly, developed a reputation amongst some for being both right wing and hating Muslims. And say that person posted an article which discussed the rise of Muslim hatred, say in Germany, amongst the far left. From a personal standpoint, as a rational and objective person, I would be interested in reading that article and understanding those developments. But what might make some other posters report it. I am trying to get into the mindset of the sort of person who would find that sort of thing so offensive that it needed reporting.

 

[MNW67]

If that's the case, then surely warning about the rise of antisemitism in the US Christian right using the term is a good thing?

Then surely posting an article which reported

"A member of the federal Religious Liberty Commission has been ousted after a hearing this week that featured tense exchanges on the definition of antisemitism. The ousted member, Carrie Prejean Boller, had defended prominent commentator Candace Owens, who routinely shares antisemitic conspiracy theories." is a good thing?

If that's the case, then surely warning about the rise of antisemitism in the US Christian right using the term is a good thing?

If that's the case, then surely warning about the rise of antisemitism in the US Christian right using the term is a good thing?

I think this post was just a summary of the article.

 

[Dec27]

Consider for a moment that there is a particular poster on here who has, rightly or wrongly, developed a reputation amongst some for being both right wing and hating Muslims. And say that person posted an article which discussed the rise of Muslim hatred, say in Germany, amongst the far left. From a personal standpoint, as a rational and objective person, I would be interested in reading that article and understanding those developments. But what might make some other posters report it. I am trying to get into the mindset of the sort of person who would find that sort of thing so offensive that it needed reporting.

So based on the above, and knowing what you know. Would you be suspicious?

I’ve looked into it and the term is gaining use in an antisemitic way.

 

[MNW67]

So based on the above, and knowing what you know. Would you be suspicious?

I’ve looked into it and the term is gaining use in an antisemitic way.

That's a very good point. It might help me finally get my head around all this. If I were one of those who believed that person was an obsessive Muslim hater, then I probably would initially be suspicious of their motivations for posting such an article. Then, after reading and digesting the article, and finding it completely inoffensive, I would likely be puzzled as to why they had posted it. What would I do then, though. Would I automatically assume that the poster must have been intending to stir up hatred. Maybe I would come to the conclusion that the poster had actually misunderstood the meaning of the article and even though it was actually inoffensive, he must have been trying to cause offence, even though he failed. Would I be outraged at that thought and then report it. I honestly don't know.

 

[morqthana]

It’s been stated by me and other posters that @Odds has posted antisemitism but the mods cleaned it up. Gas chambers etc, etc.

Yes, that has been stated by you and others.

But maybe it goes like this:

1. Odds posts a valid, non Jew-hating criticism of Israel, or Zionist land-grabbing settlers.
2. You and other posters are so incensed by this that you and other posters bombard the mods with reports.
3. The mods, with insufficient resources to investigate properly just delete the post.
4. You and other posters then start saying "Odds must have posted antisemitism because look - it's been deleted".

 

[Highway Man]

Yes, that has been stated by you and others.

But maybe it goes like this:[/list=1][*] Odds posts a valid, non Jew-hating criticism of Israel, or Zionist land-grabbing settlers.
[*] You and other posters are so incensed by this that you and other posters bombard the mods with reports.
[*] The mods, with insufficient resources to investigate properly just delete the post.
[*] You and other posters then start saying "Odds must have posted antisemitism because look - it's been deleted".[/list]

Heard enough now.
Reported

 

[morqthana]

I’ve looked into it and the term is gaining use in an antisemitic way.

That certainly seems to be the case.

And then when an article is posted, warning of exactly that, and citing instances of people being censured for using it in an anti-semitic way, you report it.

 

[noseall]

So based on the above, and knowing what you know. Would you be ?

Suspicious - yes.

Would I report it - absolutely not.

 

[morqthana]

What we hadn't really seen much of for many years, though, were the classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling the world

The USA is run by the Jews, always has been.

Err....

 

[morqthana]

You have at least one other name.

STOP LYING.

 

[foxhole]

A fairy story to you, but 'the truth' to millions of people around the world - and a growing number of Americans who truly believe the literal Word of God in Biblical text.

I think a case can be made for every war being about land, power and wealth, with most of them using religion as a pretext for starting one. The Romans used religion as an excuse to attack Carthage; the Franks and Burgundians began the first European Crusade against the Visigoths using religion as an excuse to expand their empire. The English Civil War found religious differences at the heart of their division over the Divine Right of Kings. T'was ever thus.

The God of Israel is a jealous God, and will tolerate no rival for the throne of Heaven, as Baal (Beelzebub) and the Canaanites found to their cost. Power sharing has never worked throughout history, and we can see this dynamic playing out in the Middle East today as Israel seeks to expand throughout the region using religious rhetoric as a convenient explanation for why they need to expel Palestinians from their land and deny them the right to their own homeland.

That's one of the reasons why it matters to understand the motives behind the religious narrative behind the plausible excuses used to justify the attacks on Iran, as Americans struggle to understand why it matters. Trump claims 'America first' and Israel says it's making the attacks in 'self-defence' but nobody has actually shown Iran really has the capability to make an atomic device of any kind - neither have they explained why Iran must comply with these regulations while Israel is allowed to ignore them.

The discussions underlying this confusion are skimmed over in the article as they highlight the schism between Evangelical Christians who profoundly believe in the Rapture while others question why Judaism should matter at all to their cause. Both sides of this divide have sperate reasons for promoting this modern crusade while the divergence on key elements of Scripture force them to come to terms with the ever present dichotomy of thought between Christianity and Judaism, which will never be compatible in the long term.

So incompatible fairy stories.