I had just already assumed that, but good to know it's been confirmed.

And dude was properly shutdown by El-Sayed and exposed for the hypocrisy him and his group stand for.

Abdul: So I’m going to ask you, do you disavow any attempt to read any religious doctrine into the laws of our country?

Tommy: I do not.

Abdul: You don’t disavow that. So, I think it’s you who needs to understand the Constitution, not me.

El-Sayed played him like a fiddle. Rock on.

So this Tommy chud is one of those paid actors Republicans are always shrieking about, huh?

Found the 4 minute exchange shown in the article on El-Sayed's BlueSky instead of xitter: https://bsky.app/profile/abdulelsayed.bsky.social/post/3my4gocauzs2x (Another person posted a Mastodon re-up if you prefer that)

It's worth a watch, it's so good that you'd think El-Sayed's campaign tried to set this moment up yet in fact it's the right-wing provocateur that came in thinking they could get soundbites insinuating Abdul is a terrorist, but went away with their clock cleaned instead.

Everybody knows the answer to it, answer the question

This was so great. I got goosebumps. El-Sayed has impressed me with everything I have seen.

Jesus could turn water into wine, but a Christian Nationalist can turn alcohol into domestic violence.

The way Tommyboy just left with his tail between his legs 🤌

Bye bitch

Link to the clip this article is referring to

https://mastodon.social/@benroyce/117461856187677583

Of course it’s a far right wing extremist

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.

Thomas Teepell was basically projecting? They have dual loyalties, one to a secular government, and a second to Christianity.

I mean who did Nat-C that coming?

First of all, it was a grown man who introduced himself as Tommy, whose father goes by Timmy, who worked for a politician named Bobby. What's with these weirdos who never transitioned from their elementary school names?

Secondly, what's the deal with these White Christian Nationalists dogging anyone else over their religion? These delusional Christian psychos are literally no different from the Muslim extremist psychos they condemn. They are two sides of the same coin.

Abdul should have asked Tommy if he disavows White Christian Nationalism.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

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

I was baptized Catholic, and I am agnostic now.

It's petty clear to me that ALL of Christianity is a sect of Judaism, which itself nothing more than a book worshiping cult. My evidence is Christian Hypocrisy, claiming to be pious, while acting otherwise.

Baptism is a Jewish invention. The messiah is a Jewish invention and finally, the Bible itself is also a Jewish invention. Christians accept all of these without question, ergo they are Jews. The difference is they believe Jesus (a Jewish rabbi) was the messiah while classical Jews do not.

ITS THE SAME RELIGION.

“In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Right-wing extremist theocratic nationalist tries to accuse progressive/cosmopolitan candidate of ties to right-wing extremism and theocratic nationalism.

Typical republican projection seen in action. I'm glad El-Sayed called it out for what it is. He seems very dextrous when it comes to being put on the spot by right-wing reactionary pundits/agitator-provocateurs.

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.

This seems completely expected.

They've been doing this more and more

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

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

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...)