The Rise of Christian Nationalism

[southernhybrid]

I was going to post this in politics, but since some of the posters here seem very interested in identifying religious groups that are dangerous or potentially dangerous, I thought I'd give an example of a movement that has the potential to threaten our democracy in some extreme ways. I do not view all Christians this way, but any ideology can become extreme and we are facing that possible threat today in the US.

https://wapo.st/3tshiuD

New research linking Christian nationalism with a desire to limit voting. People citing their faith as the reason they support trucker convoys that shut down the border over covid protections. And the fact that Jesus’ name appeared all over the place during the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Concern about rising radicalism among a segment of White American Christians led this week to what some religious extremism experts call the biggest Congress-related event on the topic in years.
The Thursday evening briefing, called “God is On Our Side: White Christian Nationalism and the Capitol Insurrection,” was hosted by the Congressional Freethought Caucus, a group that includes Democratic House members Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Zoe Lofgren of California and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.

I haven't used up any of my articles to gift from WaPo this month, so please read the entire article, which should be available for at least 2 weeks.

I see this movement as the biggest threat to the US, from a religion in my lifetime. While the number of evangelical Christians has been slowly declining in the US, this group of White Nationalist Christians certainly has the potential to cause problems. How do the rest of you see this potential threat? Are there enough people in this movement to do serious damage to our right to vote, or are we over reacting? Is this connected to racism and antisemitism, which I've read is fairly common among some extreme white Christian groups? What can be done about it? Would it be better to discuss this in the political forum? If the mods think so, feel free to move it. If interested, I can add some other recent articles that describe this threat.

One other thing I've wondered about is if these folks feel threatened as their numbers are falling. I grew up in an evangelical home, but that was when the believers respected the SCS and weren't very involved in politics. So, something has changed over the past 50 or 60 years that has made these same believers become extremists. Any thoughtful ideas as to why this has happened?

 

[southernhybrid]

Let me add a little more from the article. The group that is working against these Christian nationalists is made up of both atheists and Christians. I like that, as many Christians who I know share my values and support the concept of the SCS.

The Freethought Caucus was launched in 2018 to “protect the secular character of our government” and has 16 members.

The virtual briefing, which was not open to the public and included more than 50 members, staff and experts, focused on a new, 66-page report about the role of Christian nationalism in the Capitol attack, and on its “implications for the future of Democracy,” an announcement for the event read. Its goal was to bring awareness to Americans about what the caucus sees as the threats of Christian nationalism, organizers told The Washington Post.
The report was released Feb. 9 and is a project of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). It chronicles in exhaustive detail the art, signs, flags, jewelry, spoken words and even a gallows that protesters brought Jan. 6 that cited Jesus and Christianity. It also talks about various nonprofit groups, lawmakers and clergy who worked together to adorn Jan. 6 and Donald Trump’s effort to overturn his electoral loss with theological fervor. It talks about the important role of race.

 

[southernhybrid]

I found another piece that describes Christian Nationalism and how it could lead to fascism.

https://religioninpublic.blog/2020/02/05/christian-nationalism-talks-religion-but-walks-fascism/

It is this subliminal, unrecognized content of the word “Christian” that gives Christian nationalism its fascist potential. Yet even in nascent form, the tell-tale characteristics are unmistakable. Consider the common features of fascist societies outlined by Yale Philosopher Jason Stanley in his recent book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Characteristics include:

• An ideology built on reference to a mythic past.
• Populist support for strongman demagogues.
• A culture of anti-intellectualism, including anti-education and anti-science beliefs.
• An ideology that views social hierarchies as normal and necessary.
• Idealization of patriarchal families.
• Peace maintained by authoritarian “law & order” tactics.
• Strongly pro-nativist/anti-pluralism.
• Foments cultural anxiety about sexual deviance.
• Pervasive victim mentality.

Reading Stanley’s description of fascist societies, we are struck by how our collective empirical snapshots of Christian nationalism combine to make one chilling mosaic.

• Christian nationalism is built on an interpretation of history that connects America’s founding and future success with its Christian heritage (reference to a mythic past).

You really need to read the entire piece to get a better understanding of where the writers are gathering information and coming to their conclusions.

 

[steve_bank]

There is nothing new about Christian nationalism.

Henry 8th and Christ vs Christian as to which version becomes the state religion.

Hindu nationalism vs Muslim nationalism India vs Pakistan.

Religion has always been part of national and cultural identity. There are modern exceptions like China, NK, and Cuba but the lack of rekgios identity is a state policy. Western liberal democracies are secular by constitutions, but there is stilla strong Christian cultural idenity.

As to racism is depends on how you look at it. There remains a strong racial bias between Japan and China. Pre WWII Chibnes were ted to JimmCrow like policy by Japan. IMO both China and Japan are two of the most racist countries in the world.

From a documentary I watched on slavery in the USA. Before te large scale imporation of black slaves blacks did not generaly have a problem. The prejudice and bias grew out of a needfor slavery. It was about profit.

Slavery became justified by claiming a black inferiority. Over time civil rights for blacks diminished.

As the old white Christian minority fades and social policy empasizes ethic and rtional divions to a level or a kind of worship, we will see if soical stability can be maintained. So far I do not think so.

The govt demographic predictions say Latino Christians primarily Catholic will become the new majority.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is nothing new about Christian nationalism.

Henry 8th and Christ vs Christian as to which version becomes the state religion.

Hindu nationalism vs Muslim nationalism India vs Pakistan.

Religion has always been part of national and cultural identity. There are modern exceptions like China, NK, and Cuba but the lack of rekgios identity is a state policy. Western liberal democracies are secular by constitutions, but there is stilla strong Christian cultural idenity.

As to racism is depends on how you look at it. There remains a strong racial bias between Japan and China. Pre WWII Chibnes were ted to JimmCrow like policy by Japan. IMO both China and Japan are two of the most racist countries in the world.

From a documentary I watched on slavery in the USA. Before te large scale imporation of black slaves blacks did not generaly have a problem. The prejudice and bias grew out of a needfor slavery. It was about profit.

Slavery became justified by claiming a black inferiority. Over time civil rights for blacks diminished.

As the old white Christian minority fades and social policy empasizes ethic and rtional divions to a level or a kind of worship, we will see if soical stability can be maintained. So far I do not think so.

The govt demographic predictions say Latino Christians primarily Catholic will become the new majority.

But is China, NK, and Cuba really an exception? It seems to me that political ideology (the party in power) has become their state religion. And they act the same as when a religion takes power of a country... they crush anyone who openly disagrees with them.

 

[steve_bank]

There is nothing new about Christian nationalism.

Henry 8th and Christ vs Christian as to which version becomes the state religion.

Hindu nationalism vs Muslim nationalism India vs Pakistan.

Religion has always been part of national and cultural identity. There are modern exceptions like China, NK, and Cuba but the lack of rekgios identity is a state policy. Western liberal democracies are secular by constitutions, but there is stilla strong Christian cultural idenity.

As to racism is depends on how you look at it. There remains a strong racial bias between Japan and China. Pre WWII Chibnes were ted to JimmCrow like policy by Japan. IMO both China and Japan are two of the most racist countries in the world.

From a documentary I watched on slavery in the USA. Before te large scale imporation of black slaves blacks did not generaly have a problem. The prejudice and bias grew out of a needfor slavery. It was about profit.

Slavery became justified by claiming a black inferiority. Over time civil rights for blacks diminished.

As the old white Christian minority fades and social policy empasizes ethic and rtional divions to a level or a kind of worship, we will see if soical stability can be maintained. So far I do not think so.

The govt demographic predictions say Latino Christians primarily Catholic will become the new majority.

But is China, NK, and Cuba really an exception? It seems to me that political ideology (the party in power) has become their state religion. And they act the same as when a religion takes power of a country... they crush anyone who openly disagrees with them.

NK, NK, Cuba, and Russia are personality cults in a sense.

Communisn opposed to religion came out of 19th century opression by organized relgion, it was a tool of state.

Take away the supernatural and it is just an ideology.

Peole need structure. Complex soceity requires it. Realgion adds to stability.

Racial and ethnic bias is not unique to white Christians. One of the first foreign policy challenges the USA faced was the Barbary Pirates.

Musims in Africa conisderd any non believer, infidel, as fair game for slavery. Mediterranean coastal towns were abandoned out of fear. A little discussed fact is that Muslim slavers were part of the supply chain that brought slaves to the African coast for tranport to America.

 

[rousseau]

One other thing I've wondered about is if these folks feel threatened as their numbers are falling. I grew up in an evangelical home, but that was when the believers respected the SCS and weren't very involved in politics. So, something has changed over the past 50 or 60 years that has made these same believers become extremists. Any thoughtful ideas as to why this has happened?

Many American Christians live in areas of economic decline. Once the illusion of a white picket fence and Sunday dinner disappears, this is going to get people's rankles up and instigate tribalism, that looks like nationalism. I read a very good Twitter thread in the past few years that I wish I could recall better, but it addressed this very issue. I believe the gist was that white Christians are suffering an identity crisis, and are now demanding a kind of cultural dignity. This isn't specific to the U.S., but likely accounts for the rise of Trumpism.

To me, the issue is multi-faceted. Christian nationalists are likely more of an effect of economic decline, than primary cause. Although, they definitely don't help.

 

[southernhybrid]

There is nothing new about Christian nationalism.

Henry 8th and Christ vs Christian as to which version becomes the state religion.

Hindu nationalism vs Muslim nationalism India vs Pakistan.

Religion has always been part of national and cultural identity. There are modern exceptions like China, NK, and Cuba but the lack of rekgios identity is a state policy. Western liberal democracies are secular by constitutions, but there is stilla strong Christian cultural idenity.

As to racism is depends on how you look at it. There remains a strong racial bias between Japan and China. Pre WWII Chibnes were ted to JimmCrow like policy by Japan. IMO both China and Japan are two of the most racist countries in the world.

From a documentary I watched on slavery in the USA. Before te large scale imporation of black slaves blacks did not generaly have a problem. The prejudice and bias grew out of a needfor slavery. It was about profit.

Slavery became justified by claiming a black inferiority. Over time civil rights for blacks diminished.

As the old white Christian minority fades and social policy empasizes ethic and rtional divions to a level or a kind of worship, we will see if soical stability can be maintained. So far I do not think so.

The govt demographic predictions say Latino Christians primarily Catholic will become the new majority.

Nothing new, sure, but today's version carries guns and wants to suppress the vote of those who disagree with them. I was raised by insanely strict, conservative, evangelical Christians, but they still supported the separation of church and state. Today's conservative Christians are a breed that I've not seen in my lifetime. They may be a throwback to much earlier times, but they haven't been common until the last decade or so. And, their savior Trump seemed to give them lots of support. I know they aren't in the majority. I think I may have mentioned that in the original OP. They may not be the biggest threat to democracy, but they are something to be concerned about. Why else would so many groups be forming to try and keep them from obtaining too much power, like the group mentioned in my previous post?

You don't need a majority to do damage. You just need a certain percentage in powerful positions, and it's beginning to appear as if that is a growing possibility.

 

[steve_bank]

Our constitution and federal courts, some appointed by Trump, withstood Trump. So far so good.

Radical Christians are nothing new. The KKK. The John Birch Society.

In the 60s my grandmother's brother in law an Irish Catholic got invited to a John Birch meeting. The speaker claimed they were communists in the government. He asked the speaker who. The speaker answered JFK. My grandmother's brother in law let loose some good old Irish anger and walked out.

I think it is the Internet that allows eay 24/7 communcations that makes it dangerous today. Pre net there were books and news leters through which left and right radicals communicated.

Don't forget the left, I remeber the Weathermen. They were terrorist(IMO) bombers.

 

[Politesse]

I was going to post this in politics, but since some of the posters here seem very interested in identifying religious groups that are dangerous or potentially dangerous, I thought I'd give an example of a movement that has the potential to threaten our democracy in some extreme ways. I do not view all Christians this way, but any ideology can become extreme and we are facing that possible threat today in the US.

https://wapo.st/3tshiuD

New research linking Christian nationalism with a desire to limit voting. People citing their faith as the reason they support trucker convoys that shut down the border over covid protections. And the fact that Jesus’ name appeared all over the place during the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Concern about rising radicalism among a segment of White American Christians led this week to what some religious extremism experts call the biggest Congress-related event on the topic in years.
The Thursday evening briefing, called “God is On Our Side: White Christian Nationalism and the Capitol Insurrection,” was hosted by the Congressional Freethought Caucus, a group that includes Democratic House members Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Zoe Lofgren of California and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.

I haven't used up any of my articles to gift from WaPo this month, so please read the entire article, which should be available for at least 2 weeks.

I see this movement as the biggest threat to the US, from a religion in my lifetime. While the number of evangelical Christians has been slowly declining in the US, this group of White Nationalist Christians certainly has the potential to cause problems. How do the rest of you see this potential threat? Are there enough people in this movement to do serious damage to our right to vote, or are we over reacting? Is this connected to racism and antisemitism, which I've read is fairly common among some extreme white Christian groups? What can be done about it? Would it be better to discuss this in the political forum? If the mods think so, feel free to move it. If interested, I can add some other recent articles that describe this threat.

One other thing I've wondered about is if these folks feel threatened as their numbers are falling. I grew up in an evangelical home, but that was when the believers respected the SCS and weren't very involved in politics. So, something has changed over the past 50 or 60 years that has made these same believers become extremists. Any thoughtful ideas as to why this has happened?

A small, committed group of people can cause an enormous amount of trouble. Al-Qaeda at its zenith never had more than 60,000 adherents globally, and Osama Bin Laden's cell was only a few hundred strong. Investigators were shocked, when they started going through his files following the assassination, by the truly small scale of an operation they had always assumed to be much larger based on its impact. By numbers, barely a fraction of a fraction of the faith they dubiously claimed to represent the interests of. But they plunged the world into decades of bitter, pointless war. I think we should be very worried about these Christian nationalist groups. They are not good representatives of the faith as a whole, but that won't matter if they manage to truly set off the culture war they are transparently trying to spark.

 

[steve_bank]

We are off into politics.

There is a civil rights watchdog group that monitors extremists who say the Chrtian right is the most serious terror threat. I belive the FBI siad as much.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Ruby Ridge? There were a string of political and law enforcement assassinations and robberies to fund the cause.

The Aryan Nation was brought down when a black woman was driving on a public road next to their Idaho compound and was shot at. She sued them out of bussiness. There is a guy in my building who knew her.

The conservative right threat is old news.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I was going to post this in politics, but since some of the posters here seem very interested in identifying religious groups that are dangerous or potentially dangerous, I thought I'd give an example of a movement that has the potential to threaten our democracy in some extreme ways. I do not view all Christians this way, but any ideology can become extreme and we are facing that possible threat today in the US.

You don't need to go far to find examples of dangerous or potentially dangerous religiosity. Here are two examples from right here on this board:

My guess is that they cannot concede that they are wrong and give up the battle knowing that they will not convert me.

That's delusional horseshit.

Fritz left for the reason he said. I pos-rep'd that post because I agree with his point. He's done the best thing for himself, as there's nothing to learn from automatons who only repeat clichéd bullshit that they picked up on the Net from 15, 20 years ago.

and

Picture a guy who reeks to high heaven so people "beat a hasty retreat". His best guess of why they "flee" is because of how awesome he is.

You're like that.

I should point out that aside from myself, nobody responded to this angry, hate-filled rhetoric aimed at me because of my views on religion. Ironically, the response to my views that religion can lead to antisocial behavior in the religious resulted in antisocial behavior in a religious person!

So the moral of the story is that the ills of religion are to be blamed in part by the reluctance of people to speak out against those ills. No doubt many people are afraid to criticize religion because they fear the backlash from religion, or they simply "don't want to get involved." Religion tends to enjoy a privileged status in most societies where openly criticizing it is frowned upon or worse. This privileged status can and often does lead to the greater likelihood of people being hurt by religion.

 

[steve_bank]

Can you refer to thoe angry hate filled posts for me?

Us atheists here pretty much universally agree that religion can be and is often harmful.

I have gotten push back when I say there are also positives to religion, none of it 'd call hate filled and angry. Just peole telling me they strongly disagree.

There has been what I call a hetful poster who will remain nameless on this post. He attacks Christains himself as a Christian.

There have been theists who resort to hateful rhetoric against us atheists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

They are not good representatives of the faith as a whole, but that won't matter if they manage to truly set off the culture war they are transparently trying to spark.

It is personal opinion whether a given person's religious take and behavior is representative of a given faith. The lesson for me has always been that religion is what religion does. Saying a person's behavior doesn't represent the true religion is pure fantasy.

 

[bilby]

this is going to get people's rankles up and instigate tribalism, that looks like nationalism.

Tribalism looks like nationalism because nationalism is a subset of tribalism.

 

[Politesse]

"Tribalism" is a pseudonym for nationalism. It means nothing outside of its use in modern political rhetoric.

 

[Politesse]

They are not good representatives of the faith as a whole, but that won't matter if they manage to truly set off the culture war they are transparently trying to spark.

It is personal opinion whether a given person's religious take and behavior is representative of a given faith. The lesson for me has always been that religion is what religion does. Saying a person's behavior doesn't represent the true religion is pure fantasy.

Representation is not necessrily an ontological question. If someone says, "I speak for Christianity" or "I speak for Islam", they are engaging in arrogance and deceit, not describing a literal truth. There doesn't need to be a "true faith" for a person to dishonestly represent the perspectives of others, or to dubiously act on behalf of a community that in fact has not asked to be thus represented.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Can you refer to thoe angry hate filled posts for me?

See Disappearing Evangelists posts 6 and 12.

Us atheists here pretty much universally agree that religion can be and is often harmful.

Then atheists should say so and say so in public. Way too many atheists coddle the religious in their beliefs fearing that the religious will play the hurt-feelings card if their beliefs are laid bare as the falsehoods that they are. We need to consider how the victims of religion are hurt too.

I have gotten push back when I say there are also positives to religion, none of it 'd call hate filled and angry. Just peole telling me they strongly disagree.

It's fine to strongly disagree, but when people lash out at naysayers, then they've crossed the line.

There has been what I call a hetful poster who will remain nameless on this post. He attacks Christains himself as a Christian.

Atheists can be jerks too.

There have been theists who resort to hateful rhetoric against us atheists.

Yes. I've posted an example on this thread.

 

[Tigers!]

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Ruby Ridge? There were a string of political and law enforcement assassinations and robberies to fund the cause.

I did not realise that McVeigh detonated the Oklahoma bomb because he was a Christian.

 

[steve_bank]

Can you refer to thoe angry hate filled posts for me?

See Disappearing Evangelists posts 6 and 12.

Us atheists here pretty much universally agree that religion can be and is often harmful.

Then atheists should say so and say so in public. Way too many atheists coddle the religious in their beliefs fearing that the religious will play the hurt-feelings card if their beliefs are laid bare as the falsehoods that they are. We need to consider how the victims of religion are hurt too.

I have gotten push back when I say there are also positives to religion, none of it 'd call hate filled and angry. Just peole telling me they strongly disagree.

It's fine to strongly disagree, but when people lash out at naysayers, then they've crossed the line.

There has been what I call a hetful poster who will remain nameless on this post. He attacks Christains himself as a Christian.

Atheists can be jerks too.

There have been theists who resort to hateful rhetoric against us atheists.

Yes. I've posted an example on this thread.

You must not be reading the religion forum. Nobody here whitewashes religion who identifies as atheist. We are all explicit.

That's delusional horseshit.

That's what you are complaining about? I'd say that is somebody making a point with emphasis. There are bounds and limits to criticsim but IMO that is well below the threshold. The thing to do is start a theard on provate feedback and talk it over with the mods, if it something you think is wrong. Or yiu can hit the report button.