Wikipedia is a collection of random statements, I don’t go to that side. Wikipedia does not accuratly ddscribe the things that I’m against, and it does not properly explain the things that I support.
What a reductive way to look at information. I could send you all of the sourced links at the bottom of the page but then you’d come up with another excuse to not read anything and just complain.
… Christian nationalism isn’t a leprechaun. It does and has existed for a long time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism
Its not even inherently a negative term, or at least wasn’t for a good part of history.
Wikipedia is a collection of random statements, I don’t go to that side. Wikipedia does not accuratly ddscribe the things that I’m against, and it does not properly explain the things that I support.
What a reductive way to look at information. I could send you all of the sourced links at the bottom of the page but then you’d come up with another excuse to not read anything and just complain.
What do you mean? I usually find Wikipedia’s explanations quite helpful. Maybe a little heady at times, but always factual.