Christian Nationalism threatens Freedom Of Religion

Debate Room
1

This is just an article I found that I thought was interesting. In posting it, I would like to state that I am not making any claims.

Religious liberty is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, yet the meaning of this core American value has been debated throughout the nation’s history. Today, conflicts most often arise from Christian nationalism, the anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone. At its core, this idea threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also leads to discrimination, and at times violence, against religious minorities and the nonreligious. Christian nationalism is also a contributing ideology in the religious right’s misuse of religious liberty as a rationale for circumventing laws and regulations aimed at protecting a pluralistic democracy, such as nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQI+ people, women, and religious minorities. These issues will only draw more attention in the years ahead, since the 6-3 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court appears eager to hear more religious liberty cases advancing Christian nationalist arguments than in previous years.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/christian-nationalism-is-single-biggest-threat-to-americas-religious-freedom/

2 Likes
2

I would go further, and characterise the current strain of Christian Nationalism as an existential threat to the human species and the planet.

If this sounds hyperbolic, bear in mind two salient facts:

[1] The USA still possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons;

[2] The religious reich wing contains withing its ranks, a significant proportion of people who want to hasten the apocalyptic proclamations of Revelation, many of them believing the “rapture” nonsense that has arisen within the requisite doctrinal circles accompanying the fetish for this acid-trip part of the NT.

We also have to factor in the almost inhuman glee, with which Christian Nationalists and their antecedents in movements such as Dominionism (possibly the closest sister clade applicable) have exported the nastiest parts of their doctrine to other nations. The hideous spectacle of criminalising homosexuality with the death penalty in Uganda, is directly connected to the reich wing export of Christofascist bigotry by various “evangelical” groups, who are openly proud of their role in this pestilential development.

Now of course, while the verminous organisations in question were able to operate in this manner in Uganda without serious opposition, the same will not be the case if they try to export their bile and venom to certain other parts of the world. I’ll leave aside for the moment that numerous Islamic nations have their own parallel religion-driven horrors, which deserve appropriate robust measures to combat the spread of, but those same Islamic nations are going to resist Christian Nationalist exports violently.

Likewise, the European Union, and several prosperous secular democracies outside the EU such as Japan, will offer stiff resistance to Christian Nationalist interference in their societies. Germany has already set a useful precedent, by banning Scientology as a fraudulent cult, and extension of this to American brands of rampant Christofascism will be popular in several EU nations.

Faced with serious resistance to their attempts to force the rest of us to conform to their dogma, what measures will the Christian Nationalists take if they hold power in the USA? Anyone who thinks they won’t resort to military means is sadly deluded, as much of their rhetoric is precisely of the “holy war” variety. Indeed, the “rapture” brigade are likely to view this as the ideal opportunity to hasten their mythical “second coming” by launching World War III.

I contend that American Christian Nationalism is now a matter for global concern. While the primary impetus to deal with this disease should arise from the American population itself, the rest of the world would do well to prepare not only for it infecting the US political system, but becoming a lethal ideological pandemic.

7 Likes
3

Concur. The crazies have the keys.

2 Likes
4

Who cares about the keys when they have the codes for the nuclear football?

I do think Trump is crazy enough to do it.

2 Likes
5

The code for the “nuclear football” is “00000”. I shit you not.

1 Like
6

image
image440×238 28.3 KB

However, the launch codes for ICBM silos in the US, which is something entirely different than the “nuclear football” where the US president would authorise use of nuclear weapons, used to be 00000000. Since this is by now relatively common knowledge, I sincerely doubt they still are the same.

Source: article in ARS Technica, and the sources therein.

1 Like
7

Christian nationalism claims they are for religious freedom and convince believers that Christianity is “ under attack” and that they are the persecuted ones. No better way to fire up your supporters by making them feel like they are the victims.

Meanwhile, they only want religious freedom for their particular brand of Christianity and no one else. Imagine if there was a suggestion to allow Muslim or Hindu prayers in the public schools? They would have a stroke!

2 Likes
8

Never implied they were.

1 Like
9

I think all forms of Nationalism have the inherent potential to threaten people’s freedoms. I am wary of patriotism, but I despise nationalism.

3 Likes
10

I despise both.

There is a research for collective narcissism, which includes patriotism and nationalism. It’s free to download if you cannot afford it.

There is also a video interview in You Tube from the author:

11

MrDawn,

I am not sure I am welcome to post here as I am not an atheist but a Christian
Theist. Maybe one of the moderators would advise me. Or perhaps you would.

But religious liberty is close to my heart. I quit school many years ago - 9th grade. But I ended up with a job that allowed me to spend many hours reading over maybe 15 years. Some of that had to do with religious liberty.

First Amendment - even read some Supreme Court decisions on that. I am not familiar with the philosophy that is described here. Not trying to debate with you.

I have heard of the term Christian Nationalism - but suppose its a label meant to demonize Christians in order to shut them up so they have no voice
in public discourse.

To me the term is a tool to marginalize Christians. To me that is just as bad as
trying to deny LGBTQI people - or anyone else their voice and full participation as citizens.

To me religious liberty is an outgrowth of two things:

  1. Christ sowed the seed of religious freedom when he said " give to Caesar the the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s".
  2. That all people have worth and value in God’s eyes.
    I believe that is Biblical teaching.

I think its the reason that freedom grew up under Western Civilization. You don’t get that - and would not get it - under Communism or Islam or others.

You have to get it under a Biblically informed civilization then others can follow.

There are many complicated issues we have to sort through as a nation. I’ll read the article you pointed to. Maybe post on that later, if I may.

Larry

12

@Papabear48, you are welcome to post here. It is a debate forum. We welcome honest discussion. Ideas are absolutely up for criticism, people are not.

That’s incorrect. A two second google search will tell you otherwise. Additionally, read Project 2025. It explains the path for Christian Nationalism.

Please describe to me the ways Christians have been marginalized since the use of that term.

Which freedoms? There are many.

I don’t believe you. In fact, I think you’re wrong. Try exploring the ranking of human rights (and happiness index) enjoyed by citizens and that country’s religiosity.

7 Likes
13

The fact that Christians are fighting to have Christianity in schools violates Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion. Because if Muslims, Hindus, or Satanists did that, well…they’d all throw a tantrum about it. The only religious rights Christians accept are their own. They don’t care about anyone else’s “religious” rights. If they did, they’d shut up about it in schools and out in public. They’d quit shaming others for their religious or non religious choices.

images
images235×214 14 KB

2 Likes
14

You really need to get out more. Read this:

and learn something. Namely:

[1] Christian Nationalists are real;

[2] They’re seeking to turn the USA into a fundamentalist theocracy;

[3] They’ve infiltrated the Republican Party wholesale;

[4] They’re building upon the activities of past theocrats, such as Rushdoony’s Dominionists.

They are your REAL threat to religious liberty. They want to drag the USA kicking and screaming all the way back to the 12th century, complete with its own Inquisition.

You are dealing here, with people that I and others have been referring to as “Christofascists” for some time. Because they want to impose a specific, narrowly defined and fundamentalist view of Christianity onto the USA, a view that involves violent intolerance of anything outside the doctrinal pale. It won’t just be atheists or Muslims they’ll subject to the thumbscrews the moment the opportunity arises, it’ll be other Christians who don’t conform to their narrow sectarian diktat.

You had better be very afraid of what’s coming to the USA. You’re going to see Margaret Attwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale become a nightmare reality … unless the tech bro fascists who treat The Man in the High Castle as an instruction manual get there first of course. You have a choice of nightmares awaiting you.

4 Likes
15

Trump reminds me of the character, Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) in he Steven King movie, The Dead Zone.

Christopher Walken plays a guy who wakes up from a coma with the ability to see people’s futures when he touches them. A BS premise, but still a fun movie.

I don’t want to add too many spoilers, but I am sure you can tell where it’s going.

1 Like
16

Seen that one. Yes, chilling to behold. I won’t spoil the plot.

1 Like
17

@Papabear48

BlockquoteTo me that is just as bad as
trying to deny LGBTQI people - or anyone else their voice and full participation as citizens.

This is actually what Christian nationalism is trying to do. Ban gay marriage, make it next to impossible to get a no-fault divorce even if it keeps women in abusive situations, etc.

BlockquoteI think its the reason that freedom grew up under Western Civilization.

This is historically inaccurate. If we’re speaking in terms of European settlers, then for the wealthy white elite men in power, this might be true, but not for blacks, Native Americans, women, and most laypeople.

BlockquoteYou have to get it under a Biblically informed civilization then others can follow.

Respectfully, this is such a misguided and oversimplified understanding of Christianity because it presupposes “biblically informed” has a tangible meaning. There are roughly 40,000 denominations because Christians attempt to follow 66 books that are written by different people over centuries with different worldviews and perspectives, and that often conflict with one another internally. So “biblically informed” needs to be defined. When you say “biblically informed,” you’re assuming your own intrepretation of what that even means. Are we talking about men being able to rape women as trophies of war? Genocide? Slavery? Not eating shell fish? Women viewed as property? Death penalty of “witches?” Death penalty for adultrey? Women wearing head coverings?

For example, during the nineteenth century, there was a man by the name of
Bishop John Henry Hopkins 1792-1868 who struggled with reconciling his
experiences toward slavery with his convictions about what he believed the
Bible taught. He was convinced that it was biblical to affirm the institution of
slavery and that to go against such would be a compromise of scriptural truth. When writing about nineteenth-century slavery under his “Biblically informed view of civilization”, he stated:

“If it were a matter to be determined by personal sympathies, tastes, or
feelings, I should be as ready as any man to condemn the institution of
slavery, for all my prejudices of education, habit, and social position
stand entirely opposed to it. But as a Christian…I am compelled to
submit my weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty. For
then only can I be safe in my conclusions.” ( John Henry Hopkins, A Scriptural and Historical View of Slavery, 1864. Retrieved from
The Bible View of Slavery, by John Henry Hopkins.

My point is that there are people who are “biblically informed” who believe that gay marrage is a good thing and then there are people who are “biblically informedd” who believe it’s a sin. The interpretive diversity of the Bible has always and will always be a reality because the Bible is up for grabs so it can be approporiated anyway people see fit.

4 Likes
18

Christian Unwoke Nationalist Team. Or C.U.N.T. for short.

2 Likes
19

I read your post in its entirety. I won’t even try to refute it because you have obviously thought much on this.

Your shows the importance of good exegesis.

Larry

20

Even that is whatever some given person claims it to be, no more and no less.

Is it “good exegesis” to say that to be gay is fine and dandy? People who thusly exegete certainly think so, and would say that to condemn gay people as terrible sinners is “bad exegesis”. And vice-versa.

The conceit of every Christian sect is that it, strangely enough, has the “good exegesis”.

To “exegete” at all, one needs a “hermeneutic”, or interpretive system.

There are MANY such systems, and always have been. Even the NT admits to various early church controversies (whether or not Christians had to follow Jewish law, for instance – reference the arguments between Peter and Paul).

The simple fact is that any holy book – and the Bible is no exception – is a vague template that can be manipulated according to the needs of any moment in history, or indeed the needs of any particular pastor’s flock. That is why they are referred to as “timeless”. Not because they are immutable black and white rulebooks, but because they are chock-a-block full of ill-defined terms and concepts that mutate in common usage over time, but slowly enough that only a very old person paying lots of attention would even notice.

There was a time when Catholic priests weren’t celibate for instance. And I doubt any modern Christian would truly recognize the goings-on at a “house church” of the first century AD. Especially if they stumbled into one that wasn’t proto-orthodox.

2 Likes