[| I, CWAS |]

Michelle Goldberg
What is Christian nationalism?


I've just published a book called Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, and since it appeared, I've been asked several times what Christian nationalism is, and how it differs from Christian fundamentalism. It's an important concept to understand, because the threat to a pluralistic society does not come from those who simply believe in a very conservative interpretation of Christianity. It comes from those who adhere to a political ideology that posits a Christian right to rule. Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who, in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

In the Christian nationalist vision of America, non-believers would be free to worship as they choose, as long as they know their place. When Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress, the Family Research Council issued a furious statement that reveals much about the America they'd like to create:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage...Our founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

The iconography of Christian nationalism conflates the cross and the flag. As I write in Kingdom Coming, it "claims supernatural sanction for its campaign of national renewal and speaks rapturously about vanquishing the millions of Americans who would stand in its way." At one rally at the statehouse in Austin, Texas, a banner pictured a fierce eagle perched upon a bloody cross. For a liberal, such imagery smacks of fascist agitprop. But plenty of deeply committed Christians also object to it as a form of blasphemy. It's important, I think, to separate their faith from the authoritarian impulses of the Christian nationalist movement. Christianity is a religion. Christian nationalism is a political program, and there is nothing sacred about it.

Source

[Apollos]

I have very mixed feelings about this article. The author puts his finger on this Christian Nationalism garbage as not Christianity. For that I congratulate his perception.

He is, however, historically ignorant. The founders did give a special place to Christianity. They did not give a special place to ORGANIZED Christianity, but they based the entire freaking system on Christian principles. Agree with them or disagree with them, but don't say that's not what they did. You're just fighting facts at that point. It is important to remember that much of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were simply lifted out of the works of Locke and Beza (both devout Christians).

[PoeticExplosion]

I coulda sworn Locke was a deist, or a least a modified Theist.

[Apollos]

I coulda sworn Locke was a deist, or a least a modified Theist.

A self-professing one yes. But then again, the term deist meant very very different things back in Locke's day. Most libertarians have read Locke's second treatise, but they should read the first as well. It gives his markedly paleolibertarian, Christian grounding for the second treatise.

[SlavikSvensk]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

[SlavikSvensk]

goldberg's "christian nationalism" concept sounds an awful lot like a christian version of islamism

[Apollos]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

And? No one claims that they made Christianity the state religion. However, the precepts of government they ascribed to were almost all theistic and mostly Christian. Transcendent rights, religious toleration, just punishment, etc.

[SlavikSvensk]

they're much more humanist than christian. christianity, for most of its history, was extremely dogmatic, hierarchical and not at all tolerant of other modes of belief.

see: spanish inquisition, albegensian heresy, hussites, iconoclasts, numerous pogroms against jews, crusades, hugenot slaughter, cathar heretics, conversion of pagans in scandinavia, saxony, baltics, etc.

[| I, CWAS |]

they're much more humanist than christian.

Slave Owners, slaughter of autochthonal people, etc, doesn't seem too humanist.

see: spanish inquisition, albegensian heresy, hussites, iconoclasts, numerous pogroms against jews, crusades, hugenot slaughter, cathar heretics, conversion of pagans in scandinavia, saxony, baltics, etc.

See above.

[SlavikSvensk]

the ideas of toleration, rights of man, etc.=humanist

owning slaves, well, that's a nasty tradition you find all over the place. practiced and condoned, at times, by christian leaders, pagan societies, muslim leaders, and yes, many children of the englightenment.

[SlavikSvensk]

and killing native americans ain't exactly what jesus preached. but followers of jesus sure didn't mind carrying it out.

what i posted were examples of explicitly religiosly motivated christian acts of violence.

[Apollos]

they're much more humanist than christian. christianity, for most of its history, was extremely dogmatic, hierarchical and not at all tolerant of other modes of belief.

First of all you must appropriately distinguish heretic from Christian.

see: spanish inquisition, albegensian heresy, hussites, iconoclasts, numerous pogroms against jews, crusades, hugenot slaughter, cathar heretics, conversion of pagans in scandinavia, saxony, baltics, etc.

The acts of raving heretics and an apostate church.

It would help for you to show the ideological connection between actions of Christian heretics and Christianity itself, otherwise we have a non-sequiter.

Humanism does not (and I would add CANNOT) lead to a concept of transcendent rights. The idea that rights are inherent to the person is irreconcialable with humanism and/or atheism. The 20th century humanist mentality gave us Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin. Quite the track record I must say. And unlike the case of Christians, the ideological tie is clear. No transcendent judge = no transcendent rights = human rights are not universally real.

[SlavikSvensk]

the catholic and orthodox churches (and before that the united church)were THE churches after constantine and prior to the reformation. so their actions can't be dismissed as "heretical" or "apostate" since they represent the body corporate of christianity for more than a thousand years.

and protestant societies have just as frequently partaken in such nastiness, like people from any other religion. slavery, for example, was carried out primarily by the religiously observant, not atheists and agnostics.

christian society included none of the things you ascribe to christianity until christians embraced greek and roman philosophy and, yes, humanism. so it ain't christian, even if there are a few christian aspects to it...

[Apollos]

the catholic and orthodox churches (and before that the united church)were THE churches after constantine and prior to the reformation. so their actions can't be dismissed as "heretical" or "apostate" since they represent the body corporate of christianity for more than a thousand years.

The exchanged the truth of God for lies based on traditions of men and their leader sat in the temple of God and made himself to be God. He is anti-Christ personified, that man of sin. The Roman Catholic Church is mystery Babylon, therefore it's rise to power was in a sense prophesied.

christian society included none of the things you ascribe to christianity until christians embraced greek and roman philosophy and, yes, humanism. so it ain't christian, even if there are a few christian aspects to it...

The Christian church never embraced humanism (particularly from Greek or Rome, both theistic societies, pagan actually). The ideas of transcendent rights came from the judeoChristian idea of a transcendent good.