Some questions for those who throw the term Christian Nationalist around. Direct, specific, relatively concise answers only.
Question 1: What exactly do you mean by Christian Nationalist?
Question 2: Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Christian nationalist?
Question 3: Were the abolitionists Christian Nationalists?
Question 4: Have you ever applied that label to a Democrat (why or why not)?
Question 5: Do you really believe we shouldn't "force our morals" on others?
I personally believe that this is another on of the terms (any of the "ist" or "ism"s) that are used as a weapon against people rather than something that is honestly descriptive. It's one more example of a term that changes meaning as needed and simultaneously means everything and therefore nothing.
49 comments:
Question 1: What exactly do you mean by Christian Nationalist?
From Britannica:
"Christian nationalism, ideology that seeks to create or maintain a legal fusion of Christian religion with a nation’s character. Advocates of Christian nationalism consider their view of Christianity to be an integral part of their country’s identity and want the government to promote—or even enforce—the religion’s position within it. "
That's what I mean. Usually (at least in the US), it is a specifically conservative Christian worldview is what is intended by Christian nationalists.
Question 2: Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Christian nationalist?
No. He was specifically opposed to Christian nationalism doctrine.
Question 3: Were the abolitionists Christian Nationalists?
Not that I'm aware of, not as it is typically defined.
Question 4: Have you ever applied that label to a Democrat (why or why not)?
No. Because it doesn't fit the definition. As a reminder: At least in the US, Christian nationalism is specifically about promoting a specifically conservative Christian worldview by the force of law and a hyper-dominant culture.
Question 5: Do you really believe we shouldn't "force our morals" on others?
No, I don't believe that. I believe it is rational and important to force a respect of human rights so, those who would do harm to others, that should not be allowed. But that is not "christian nationalism" in any way at all.
Agreed?
According to the people at Christians against Christian Nationalism:
Christian nationalism is not the same as Christianity, and it can be defined and understood in a variety of ways. In this campaign, we define Christian nationalism as “a political ideology that seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy.”
Some people may conflate Christian nationalism and Christianity because they both use the symbols and language of Christianity, such as a Bible, a cross and worship songs. But, Christian nationalism uses the veneer of Christianity to advance its own aims – to point to a political figure, party or ideology instead of Jesus. At Christians Against Christian Nationalism, we sometimes refer to it as “white Christian nationalism” to emphasize its frequent overlap with white supremacy.
https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/learn-more
I will say that "christian nationalism" is loosely defined with a range of beliefs, not all of which are problematic. Hoping/working for a society that is more loving, welcoming, just and inclusive is working for God's realm on earth... but it's not trying to legislate specific Christian values. The Christian nationalism that people are rightly concerned about is trying to make a "sharia christian" nation (as conservative Christians often speak of Islam).
1. Who is a well known politician who you specifically can you name that is advocating for this formulation?
Do you, or have you , ever used the term "Christian Nationalist" to apply to someone who has not specifically expressed convictions that match your definition?
2. So, when MLK used his position as a pastor, his influence in the church, and scripture to advocate for civil rights, he was not using the tactics used by "Christian Nationalists", is that your position? How was MLK's advocating for rights based in Scripture different?
3. Similarly, the most compelling voices in the abolitionist movement were arguing from a Scriptural/Biblical position for the basis to end slavery. I'm confused as to how specifically this is significantly different.
4. Interesting. Your "definition" does not include this bit of information. I'm confused, are you suggesting that the definition above is wholly incompatible with a progressive christian pushing their view of christian doctrine as the basis for public policy?
I get that you are answering with your personal opinion, but as a general rule excluding an entire option a priori, and without proof isn't necessarily a good idea. I seems as though you've simply constructed an addendum to your definition that fits your personal presupposition and excludes any other possibility.
5. So you do not believe that passing laws is "imposing" the morals of the group in charge on others? Given the simple reality that significant segments of the world do not precisely agree with your opinions about what "human rights" are and which ones should be codified into law, can you see how inconsistent this could appear? Is not "forcing" people to adhere to a law or standard with which they do not agree, exactly what you don't believe in?
So, if certain "Christians" advocate for laws based on their Christian beliefs (For example anti Slavery laws, or laws against prostitution) you would argue that those laws are an example of "Christian Nationalism", correct?
If certain "progressive christians" chose to advocate for laws based on their christian beliefs (unlimited, unfettered immigration or drug legalization), then you would argue that they were not acting as "Christian Nationalists", correct?
When other religions within the US or Europe, establish a parallel "justice system" based solely on their chosen holy text, religious law, or tradition, is this not the practical equal of "Christian Nationalism"?
If leaders of a non Christian religion or sect openly advocated for the replacement of US or European law with the laws of their religion or sect, would that not be the equivalent of "Christian Nationalism"?
Finally, what if there was a "New Jacobin" movement in the US, which advocated the replacement of US law with the laws and rules which flowed out of the secular foundation which underpinned the French Revolution, would that not be the equivalent of "Christian Nationalism"?
So, with this new less definitive definition, you've considerably broadened the definition you first proposed. I'll note that the "loosely defined" loophole allows for these folx to define "Christian Nationalism" pretty much however they want and manipulate this flexible definition to their benefit.
As this raises some of the same questions as the first, I won't ask them again.
I will say, that any worldview or movement that puts anything or anyone in the position rightly filled by Jesus (Savior, Lord, etc) could reasonably defined as not Christian by virtue of that fact alone.
Again, (while I am sure that there are some fringe randos who fit these definitions) I have yet to here one serious person in a position of power or influence advocate for anything close to this.
To answer your question about Dr King's opposition to Nationalism/Christian nationalism, read his own words here:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nationalism
As to this (which pertains to King and the abolitionists):
I'm confused as to how specifically this is significantly different.
Because it is.
These folk - and many today - are speaking specifically to OTHER CHRISTIANS. Saying, "from one Christian to another, THAT is not part of Christianity..."
Which is different than saying "Because I believe my particular flavor of Christianity is right, I want to legalize it..."
I DO commend you: These ARE good questions to be asking and reasonable questions. I'm just limited in time right now.
Rest assured, there are good answers to these questions. Maybe we can find some common ground here when we're all speaking about the same thing.
Noting, one Christian to another: God is a God of love and justice and freedom. To invoke God's name to promote slavery or oppression or the murder/abduction of immigrants is an abuse of God's name and not within Jesus' teachings.
On the other hand, saying to the nation at large: I believe MY version of Christianity is right and God does not WANT us to allow gay guys to marry, lesbians to adopt, immigrants to be welcomed willy nilly... therefore, because of what I think MY holy texts teach, we should implement all that as law...
These are different things. The difference between being a Christian and a Christian nationalist.
I'll address more as I have time.
To answer your first question, who is a currently in power Christian nationalist, I'd begin with Hegseth. But again, out of time:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/19/politics/douglas-wilson-pastor-pentagon-service-christian-nationalism
What I sense, is that you seem to be suggesting that it is acceptable to use one's Christian (or other) faith as the motivation for policy or legal changes, as long as they don't cross some non specific threshold. With this be an accurate representation?
You do realize that "because it is" is hardly a specific, direct answer do you not?
"To invoke God's name to promote slavery or oppression or the murder/abduction of immigrants is an abuse of God's name and not within Jesus' teachings."
What a strange position. You seem to be suggesting that it IS acceptable to use YHWH's name to promote (for example) refusing to enforce long standing immigration law or to advocate for eliminating immigration law/restrictions entirely. I fail to see how invoking or attempting to codify law based on what YHWH/Scripture says is problematic regardless of which side of the issue you may be on.
It seems as though you are making a fine distinction that hinges on who those beliefs are incorporated into law. It seems as though your problem hinges on imposing laws. Leaving aside that all laws impose someone's morality or worldview on the entire country for a second. It seems as though you are suggesting that some Christians be prevented from bringing their faith into the public square and advocating for laws that reflect their faith. Yet, not assuming that the same restriction applies equally to all faiths (or atheism).
I suspect that you probably should have stopped earlier as you actually had a point that we could agree on (putting anything in place of Jesus is wrong), but I'm afraid that your desire to make this one sided will lead to problems.
If you don't have time to actually prove your claims, perhaps you should refrain from making them until you do?
I''ll start by saying that I'm not a fan of many of the faith advisors floating around the Trump administration.
What that brief piece included was enough for me to question the theology of Wilson. Yet are we at the point where we punish people or restrict people from freely communicating their beliefs and opinions? Should Hegseth not be free to believe whatever he chooses, as long as he doesn't force his beliefs on others?
I kind of get your point in theory, but our country has survived 250 years and weathered all sorts of wild crap. I could be wrong, but it seems that the line would be drawn when belief becomes action. In other words, Hegseth can go to whatever church he wants, and Wilson can preach and write whatever he wants, until those thoughts become specific actions. Is it appropriate to call them out, sure, go to town. But why stop at just "Christian Nationalists"? Why not treat any and every movement with the same scrutiny?
As I noted earlier. I could absolutely see a political movement based solely on Reason, Technology, and Evolution/Naturalism/Materialism (Let's call them the New Jacobins, NJ for short) making arguments similar in nature to those you allege of "Christian Nationalists". That we should govern based solely on Reason, a Utilitarian worldview, technology, and Science. That one's utility to society should be the greatest good. While it is a different worldview driving the movement, the tactics and results would be essentially the same.
Look, to the extent there really is some serious critical mass of people who want to impose a Christian theocracy in the US, I'd oppose them being able to do so. The problem is that I would oppose ANY worldview, philosophy, or religion from imposing their peculiar "ism" on the US equally. What I see is a very focused, almost monomaniacal, obsession with "Christian Nationalism", and very little concern about any ideology that might have similar intentions.
you seem to be suggesting that it is acceptable to use one's Christian (or other) faith as the motivation for policy or legal changes, as long as they don't cross some non specific threshold. With this be an accurate representation?
If one's faith tradition believes it's wrong to have legalized slavery or that it's wrong to force a rape victim to marry their rapist, or that it's wrong to kill children in wartime... in other words, IF one's faith tradition aligns with basic human rights defenses, that's fine. BUT, the legitimate reason to try to legislate it is IF it aligns with human rights promotion.
We ought not legislate a specific-to-your-religion opinion just because it's what your religion promotes, that's not a good, valid or reliable reason to promote a given action by force of law.
Do you disagree?
Do you think that people SHOULD try to force, by law, an action that is ONLY to appease someone's religious preferences, aside from any human rights or other reasoning?
Do you agree with me that we should never try to legislate that Atonement as the ONLY means of salvation into a heavenly afterlife as a requirement to teach in our schools?
Do you agree that we should NEVER try to legislate the death penalty for sexual activity outside of marriage?
These are very religion-specific beliefs, not a human rights or universal belief.
I suspect you would agree on that theory, but you tell me.
From another pro-life level conservative Christian website...
Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation should be a Christian theocracy, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Christian Nationalism seeks supremacy over all else; whereas our Lord never did.
https://www.compassionateconservativerevival.org/post/christian-nationalism-doesn-t-just-threaten-our-nation-it-threatens-our-faith?
Craig...
The problem is that I would oppose ANY worldview, philosophy, or religion from imposing their peculiar "ism" on the US equally. What I see is a very focused, almost monomaniacal, obsession with "Christian Nationalism", and very little concern about any ideology that might have similar intentions.
The problem we have, and it's a good problem, as far as it goes, is that a free nation won't criminalize or ban from voting the racist, the person advocating for slavery, the person advocating for criminalizing LGBTQ folks, the person promoting an exclusively and specifically Islamic or Christian state (whatever one means by those terms)... we can't bar folks who believe thusly from participation... and we probably shouldn't. Do you agree?
Having said that, we who affirm and believe in liberty and human rights, we have a vital obligation to strongly speak out against/denounce groups who would promote rules that would promote an official state religion and laws that are subservient to that specific religion (or subset of that religion).
Do you agree?
As to those of us who speak out specifically against Christian nationalism, it's because some 30% of voters support the notion of Christian nationalism, that, as opposed to "sharia law," and thus, is a more currently pressing concern.
Does that seem reasonable?
(I can provide the link to 30% CN supporter, if you doubt it.)
Dan's link is to an outfit which clearly seems to lean "progressive" and includes at least one fraud (Jim Wallis) who definitely promotes enacting policy based on HIS "Christian" beliefs...that is, his fake-Christian beliefs.
But for Dan, the nice thing about this group is how ambiguous it is in asserting Christian nationalism exists, without any solid examples of it. Instead, they they cited Dylan Roof as an example.
It is like I said in a comment which I thought I submitted here but doesn't appear, that the term is simply another used to smear Christians of a political conservative bent. The reality is that politically and religiously conservative Christians maintain the very same attitude as did our founding fathers as this Heritage Foundation piece so accurately describes:
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding
It's one of many which supports that which the "progressive Christian Nationalists like Dan and his kind so disparages as something which is an actual threat to the nation. As usual, by disparaging the decent, those like Dan seek to install in their place the perverse like him.
From Dan's very brief snippet from Kind we get absolutely no understanding of how King understood the word.
Few take the Lord's Name in vain so routinely as does Dan by his mere mention of it in support of his heretical positions.
Firstly, I want to say that the "Christian" advisors to Trump are all rank heretics, which is why he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel.
Too often people who are Christian as well as patriotic are labeled "Christian Nationalists," and that is just plain wrong
The New Apostolic Reformation (full of heretics) are pretty much staunch supporters of Christian Nationalism, which I think is more appropriately called theocracy.
Craig....
You seem to be suggesting that it IS acceptable to use YHWH's name to promote (for example) refusing to enforce long standing immigration law or to advocate for eliminating immigration law/restrictions entirely. I fail to see how invoking or attempting to codify law based on what YHWH/Scripture says is problematic regardless of which side of the issue you may be on.
What I'm actually saying ( as opposed to what it "seems like" to you) is that we ought NOT use "my personal opinion based upon these lines from some ancient sacred text is that X should be outlawed based on my personal opinions about these ancient texts..." as a valid set of reasoning for law-making and should be denounced by rational, freedom-loving adults.
Do you agree?
Whether it's a Muslim extremist advocating execution of gay people or a Christian extremist advocating criminalizing homosexuality or gay folks marrying, or a liberal or other extremists advocating for forced abortions when a fetus is known to be disabled.... we should denounce that as too subjective and not based upon reason and defense of human rights.
Agree or disagree?
Now that I have more time, another set of answers to your questions:
Question 1: What exactly do you mean by Christian Nationalist?
The term is famously vague. The way it is used by those who have concerns about Christian nationalists is that these people want to create rules/laws/policies at the local and national (and global, if they could) that specifically enforce their specific religious traditions and rules... even if those rules cause harm to others. They would deny these harms.
What specific rules they might want to implement - even against the will of the majority of the people - depends on the specific CNs, but might be specifically to the benefit of white male conservative christians (for example), even at the expense of other groups of people who do not share their values or views. For these more extreme white christian nationalists, it's all about "restoring" the US to the place and time when white men and conservative christian values were the primary deciders of matters.
Obviously, this is problematic for wide swaths of our nation and reasonably opposed as oppressive and harmful, even if these "true white christian nationalist believers" truly believe it's for the best.
The term is NOT speaking to Christians who merely happen to believe that the world would be a better place if we were more welcoming, inclusive, just, un-oppressive and loving, as such people are not seeking to force that on others, only to demand that the harm caused by white christian nationalists not happen.
Question 2: Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Christian nationalist?
No. No, he just wasn't. Ask anyone who's familiar with him and his traditions.
Question 3: Were the abolitionists Christian Nationalists?
It would probably depend upon the abolitionist you were speaking of. But seeking to create policies that end oppression and racism is NOT in and of itself, Christian nationalism. It IS Christian, though.
Question 4: Have you ever applied that label to a Democrat (why or why not)?
No. Because the definition does not typically apply (I'm sure there may be exceptions, I'm just not familiar with any).
Question 5: Do you really believe we shouldn't "force our morals" on others?
No. We SHOULD require that people not cause harm to others or abuse human rights. That's really more of a human rights concern than morality, although there is overlap.
Do you see the difference between thinking, "We ought not to enslave people because it's wrong as it's an affront to and an attack on human rights and a free nation" and, "I believe the Bible teaches that it IS okay sometimes (or, it's NEVER okay) to enslave people, therefore, we ought to/ought not enslave people..."?
Craig:
that are used as a weapon against people rather than something that is honestly descriptive.
Do you also consider "sharia law" claims by many conservatives as attacks on Muslims, as a group, something that is typically used as a weapon against people rather than something that is honestly descriptive?
Craig:
it seems that the line would be drawn when belief becomes action. In other words, Hegseth can go to whatever church he wants, and Wilson can preach and write whatever he wants, until those thoughts become specific actions.
But by putting (wholly unqualified) people like Hegseth or the Project 25 people like Russell Vought, in positions of power SPECIFICALLY to promote these Christian nationalist policies, they ARE taking actions to promote christian nationalist policies. That is the point. Christian nationalists don't want LGBTQ folks in the military and now, that is happening. Christian nationalists don't want women in positions of power in the military and that's happening. Christian nationalists don't want legalized abortion and now that is increasingly difficult.
Christian nationalists didn't want the Dept of Education and that is on its way out. Christian nationalists promote conspiracy theories about "immigrants voting" and they are now passing policies that are nominally to prevent that, but that was NOT a real world problem, and the policies they're implementing decrease legal immigrant and poorer folks from participating in the voting process, even though they have a right to vote.
Etc, etc, etc.
They ARE literally implementing Christian nationalist policies. They ARE putting CN policies into action. THAT is why we're concerned. And that is why we ARE calling them out.
And yet, you downplay that reality.
What specific, enumerated qualifications fir SECDEF does Hegseth lack?
What specific CN policies is Hegseth implementing?
Please provide specific examples of both.
You are correct. How these people got in these roles is beyond me.
There are many things that Dan doesn’t appear to understand, yet manages to speak confidently about.
In places where Sharia law is actually being enforced, it is a description of reality. In places where Muslims speak publicly about enforcing Sharia law, it’s a statement of intent. Given the Islamic position that every one should live under Sharia, I fail to see how it can be anything but descriptive of either present or potential future reality.
Because repeating yourself in a more vague and verbose manner is somehow going to be helpful.
I’m not sure how to understand your statement, in the context of seeing you and huge numbers of leftist protesters, using various old Testament scriptures that were clearly specific commands to the Israelite theocracy about how to treat specific people who spent time within the borders of Israel. Especially given the actual details of how that whole thing worked. I guess I’m struggling with the use of specific, out of context, lines from scripture being used to justify specific left-wing immigration policies, with what you said above.
My problem with your second paragraph is that I am unaware of any serious attempts by Christians to make simply being homosexual, a crime, or making “gay marriage“ a crime. Now, if you would like to show me the specific laws being proposed to do those things, I will gladly evaluate those and offer an opinion on them. You are correct that this does contrast sharply with Sharia. We do see actual specific instances of people being killed for being gay, women, being beaten, and or killed for things like uncovering their hair, just to name two real world examples. I guess I am having a difficult time in accepting that something that is literally happening is exactly the same as something that might theoretically happen at some point in the future. Personally, I think what I’ve learned in first aid training applies, and that you deal with the immediate problem first before you deal with the potential or theoretical problems.
As I work through Dan’s comments, I’m noticing a trend. I will point to someone like Tallarico, who is actually publicly advocating using lines from scripture to justify actual changes in US law. Yet Dan insist that, buy his definition, Talerico cannot be a Christian nationalist, even though he is engaging in one of the behaviors than identifies as a Christian nationalist behavior. As I’ve noted, Talerico is not the only one attempting to use lines from scripture to justify unlimited, unfettered immigration policies. Yet again, Dan’s very subjective definition excludes these people from being labeled Christian nationalists, despite engaging in behavior, which Dan has identified as being Christian nationalist behavior. I am trying to use actual real examples of things actually happening, while Dan is left with vague, nonspecific, claims about things that might happen.
Yes, I do agree that the US constitution protects free speech and doesn’t criminalize thought.
As I’ve been clear about, I oppose an official “state religion”, and anyone who advocates one. The problem I have is that I see people actually advocating for a state religion, and I don’t see many on the left actively opposing them. What I do see is people who are obsessed with some possible, theoretical, future action.
I’m not surprised that you’d make an unsupported claim and act as if you’re somehow exempt from the demands for proof you insist others provide.
I see no reason to repeat myself, but your dedication to digging up random fringe crap is impressive.
Thank you for restating my point, but doing so in a more convoluted and verbose manner. I get it, you have arbitrary limits on what faith based ideas can inform public policy.
It’s reassuring to hear you say that you do not favor implementing specific laws to align with someone’s specific religious beliefs. I’m sure that you’ll oppose anyone or any group doing this with equal vehemence.
Yes, I agree that legislating “atonement” is a problem. Of course I’d also object to a state requiring forced conversion to a specific religion or forcing those who don’t convert into slavery.
Where are Christians advocating for the death penalty for sex outside of marriage? Is there actually any religious group that actually does enforce punishment (including the death penalty) for sex outside of marriage?
Name one “universal belief”?
To once again directly and clearly answer questions from Craig, to show him how it's done...
So you do not believe that passing laws is "imposing" the morals of the group in charge on others?
YES, I DO believe that. As I said. It IS a right and reasonable thing to pass laws (that might be called moral, reasonably) based upon protection of human rights. AS I said.
Now, your turn:
Do you AGREE that it is reasonable to pass rules/laws to protect human rights, to protect people from harm from those who would cause harm?
AND, do you agree that this is right and reasonable, REGARDLESS of one's particular faith tradition?
Given the simple reality that significant segments of the world do not precisely agree with your opinions about what "human rights" are and which ones should be codified into law, can you see how inconsistent this could appear?
Once again, it IS right to create laws to protect people from harm. And it IS wrong to cause harm, EVEN IF that harm is based upon one's religious opinions and traditions (ie, genital mutilation or kicking one's child out of the family because they're gay). Do you agree?
Is not "forcing" people to adhere to a law or standard with which they do not agree, exactly what you don't believe in?
YES, it IS requiring by force of law that people not cause harm to others. As I've clearly stated. And it IS reasonable to do so, regardless of one's religious opinions.
Do you agree?
So, if certain "Christians" advocate for laws based on their Christian beliefs (For example anti Slavery laws, or laws against prostitution) you would argue that those laws are an example of "Christian Nationalism", correct?
NO. As I've made clear. That protection of human rights will often coincide with a variety of religious traditions does not make making murder a criminal action an instance of christian nationalism, of jewish nationalism or of muslim nationalism - since all of these religions are opposed to murder.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
You see, in a free nation, we pass laws based on an appeal to human rights, not based to an appeal to one religion or another. Now, some of us Christians might say to OTHER Christians, "This opposition to killing is part and parcel of Jesus' teachings, of course, we should endorse such laws!"
What reasonable people SHOULDN'T do, however, is say, "My personal human religion teaches me that men should not lay with me and if they do, they should be killed!" OR "my religion teaches me that abortion is murder, therefore, any woman who has an abortion should be killed!" THOSE would be pisspoor reasons to vote for such laws.
Do you agree?
Christian beliefs can (and should, I say) align with a deep valuation of human rights. Any religion that isn't solidly in support of human rights is a pathetic tradition. Now, people are FREE to hold such anti-human rights beliefs (being a free nation), but rational freedom-loving people should always denounce such "reasoning" as antithetical to freedom and human rights.
Do you agree?
I'm not a Christian Nationalist but I want to see the end of the Department of Education the same as millions of Americans. The DOE was given to the teachers unions for their votes and has done nothing but destroy the public education system to where it has become mostly a public indoctrination system into all things left while the children can read of do basic arithmetic. It has noting to do with "Christian Nationalism."
Or let me approach it this way:
Presumably, you and I agree that just because someone has a faith tradition that they truly believe in and "rules" they truly think that their god/goddess wants to see implemented at the state level... that just because some may think that, for the public at large, this is not necessarily a compelling case, nor should it be, insofar as that theory of their opinions about what they think their god wants.
Do we agree that a religious doctrine or opinion about what their god may want, alone, is not a compelling reason to make laws?
Do we further agree that TO THE DEGREE that it's true that there are SOME religious sects who actively WANT to make their specific religious rules and laws the law of the land, even against popular opinion, simply because they are true believers in their idea of what they think God wants... that such groups are some level of threat to a free republic (depending on how far they're willing to go to implement their religious rule/theocracy on an unwilling people)?
Finally, would we agree that such groups that have managed to actively get their people in positions of highest power, with a direct line of communication with and influence upon the president/leaders (or even if they WERE the leaders), are a particular concern and something to actively guard against?
I think that using your simplistic harm criteria as the basis for laws is insufficient.
The reality is that we try to do just that, but enforcement of virtually every law harms someone, so it’s more about a hierarchy of harm than a binary.
But in general laws should be written to prevent as much harm as possible.
Yet, how does that premise hold up if those laws aren’t enforced or enforced selectively? Does not failure to enforce laws against those who break them constitute some level of harm or foreseeable harm against others?
In the sense that my answer is as broad and vague as your meandering preamble, I vaguely and broadly agree.
Acknowledging that you didn’t really answer the question asked, I’ll try this.
Why are you so invested in fighting against something that might, possibly happen at some future time while what you claim to be against is happening right now in 2026?
So you absolutely do believe in forcing people to behave in certain ways based on your opinions about harm and human rights. Gotcha.
So you do agree that making laws based on ones religious beliefs is absolutely fine, as long as it lines up with your opinions on harm and human rights?
What if someone grossly misrepresents Scripture as their reason for proposing a law that does align with your opinions on harm and human rights, is that acceptable?
Actually we pass laws based on a majority vote of either the people (in some cases) , or their elected representatives.
Again, in the absence of any Christian making the argument for criminalizing homosexuality, there is nothing to agree or disagree with.
I have, and do, agree that non Christians who make laws that require the death penalty for homosexuality, other religions, or lack of modesty are vile humans who should be opposed strongly. I believe that fighting the actual existence of laws you claim to oppose being hypothetically passed in the US is important. I further believe that any attempt to establish a parallel legal system in the US that would enforce those laws should be stamped out immediately.
As a general rule, keep this in mind. When you write a paragraph which is simply you expressing your unproven opinions and then append “Do you agree?”, you have my permission to assume that the answer is no (or not totally). So, why not just assume no, and save everyone the time.
By any objective measure the Ed Dept has failed, which is reason enough to do away with it.
The problem with so much of what Dan attributes to his CN bogeyman is that there are secular arguments for almost every thing he’s mentioned.
When you presume, you’re generally going to look stupider.
No. Not in the simplistic way you’ve presented it.
Why would you ask if I agree with something that I’ve clearly stated that I (mostly) agree with? Seems either lazy or a waste of time.
Again based on the fact that you’ve offered no specific evidence that anyone is actually in a position of power (at least from a CN perspective), there’s nothing to agree with.
I do however think that anyone who is ACTUALLY in a position of power who publicly acknowledges that their greater loyalty lies with another country, religion, or worldview should be removed. I also believe that any Judge who issues rulings based on a legal system other than US code, or shows favoritism based on race, creed, color, national origin, or religion should be removed from the bench immediately.
I’m more concerned about the problem we have, than a problem we might have.
I’m more concerned about those who already hold office than those who advise office holders.
As with first aid, prioritize the existing problem before moving on.
[Rolls eyes]
Look, suffice to say, there are huge numbers of people concerned with Christian nationalism, including large numbers of conservative traditionalist Christians. It's not some vast left wing conspiracy to demonize white conservatives. In addition to the conservatives I've already cited, here are others...
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/01/its-not-christian-nationalism-its-conservative-identity-politics/
https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/02/22/christian-conservatism-vs-christian-nationalism/
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/07/christian-nationalism-opponents-trump
Etc, etc
I think ("know" actually) that in this country, anyone has the right to try to "force" behaviors or punishments based on the tenets of their faith, so long as they make their attempts according to our established law. There is no Constitutional prohibition against making such attempts.
In the meantime, Dan has no problem with his religion of perversion forced upon the nation in the form of unconstitutional judicial rulings one SSM and abortion and the opening of our sovereign borders to any and all foreigners regardless of who they are. Thus, the fear of "Christian Nationalism" is leftist projection intended to demonize conservatives.
I see no reason to continue presenting definitions of that which doesn't exist in any meaningful way to any truly threatening degree. I'm quite sure we all know at this point what the hell "Christian Nationalism" is according to those who hate conservatives.
You’re not wrong. Anyone can try to get any law enacted on pretty much any basis as long as they follow the correct process.
It’s the obsession with believing that it’s CNs who pose the greatest risk of forcing unwanted laws on the US.
I do so love it when you offer random links in support of your straw man argument. Nothing I’ve said precludes you and your band of lemmings from worrying about whatever bogeyman you choose.
I guess you were so focused on arguing against a position I’ve not taken that you’ve decided to ignore the things I have said, etc etc.
Where we differ is that I acknowledge that these people are using Christianity as a cover to attain political power, or attempting to make Christianity something it was never intended to be. In other words they’re the wolves in sheep’s clothing Jesus warned about. It’s as much a theological argument as political.
Christianity is not suited for secular politics or theocracy. Other religions are actively moving that direction. But who cares.
Of course there is. It’s one more attempt to define the term broadly and vaguely so as to allow it to be used as a rhetorical cudgel against anyone (except progressives or Muslims l) who even hints at a motivation based in faith to even a tiny degree.
Bad advice from otherwise trustworthy people, most likely.
I found this among a host of options on the search engine:
https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/essays/the-framing-of-a-movement-defining-the-new-apostolic-reformation
I don't know the source, but it appears to distinguish itself as "orthodox" and thus apart from this movement in describing what the movement is. Nowhere does it mention NAR refers to itself, nor does the author refer to it, as "Christian Nationalism", and based on this essay alone, it seems to me to be no more than a rather quirky confederation of churches who seek to do what I hope real Christians can do...bring the nation to Jesus.
While among its several goals to to get more Christians in government so as to ensure a more Christian nation, I saw nothing that would suggest theocracy is one of those goals. Like many, I seek to promote and support the most Christian candidates possible where truly Christian candidates can be identified. As we saw in the last three elections in particular, no such candidates were among the choices after the party nominees were announced. From that point, the goal is to support the most qualified according to track record (political if possible, private sector accomplishments otherwise) and platform to select the candidate most closely aligned with Constitutional principles, which would lead to outcomes aligned with Christian values.
Unless someone has definitive evidence to provide here, I'll continue a degree of search to find anything which confirms the label "Christian Nationalist" is appropriate for this group.
On what basis can you insist we "ought not" use ANY Scripture influenced opinion to enact laws or outlaw behaviors? That's absurd and I've no doubt you have the protection of your cherished perversions in mind in so insisting.
A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
But sure. Let's pretend it's only the weirdos in the margins and not our Sec of Defense or leading commanders.
Indeed. This perv can roll his eyes all he likes, but until he can cite an actual movement acting to replace our constitutional republic with a theocracy and proclaims it outright, he's just indulging in the very same lie his kind always have perpetuated by demonizing better people as those seeking to do what they're actually doing. The sock puppet who Dan stupidly insisted was a better candidate for president than the proven commodity we thankfully now have (no...really, Lord. I give you thanks and praise for allowing Trump to have ascended once again to the presidency. The nation couldn't take another four years of the Biden handlers handling Harris), indulged in the very same fearmongering in his warning against a near non-existent "threat" of "white nationalism" which Dan now combines with "Christian nationalism", another puffed up "threat".
Dan can find all the "conservatives" he thinks he can find, but without having read his last three links, I doubt any have named any definitive CN group. But then, Dan doesn't know what conservatism is or looks like. Again, we need no further examples of anyone defining CN. We all know what it is. It's just that honest people can't and won't pretend it's a greater threat to the nation than the "fundamental change" Dan's kind of false Christians/false Americans are seeking to achieve.
By the many explanations, descriptions and definitions which have been provided here and what I've found thus far, Dan's kind would accuse the founding fathers of being "Christian Nationalists" as borne out by this 29 minute essay from Heritage Foundation (which Dan will reject without the slightest counter evidence to justify it---it's unlikely he'll even take the time to read it).
“He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,’” the NCO continued. “He had a big grin on his face when he said all of this which made his message seem even more crazy.”
It wouldn’t be a stretch to blame some of the blatant constitutional violations on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has repeatedly evoked God and Christian nationalism in his time fronting the Pentagon.
Hegseth has parroted the views of Douglas Wilson, a conservative theologian who advocated for Christian dominance over government and society. He has followed through in practice, instating regular prayer services at America’s military headquarters. He also entered office with several Christian symbols already emblazoned on his skin—a Jerusalem cross and the phrase “Deus vult”—in what Hegseth has described as emblems of the “modern-day American Christian crusade.”
U.S. service members are afforded the religious liberty protections in the First Amendment. They also have a legal right to seek religious accommodations—and the MRFF told Larsen that it has been overwhelmed with complaints about commanders who are apparently tapping into the same sort of Christian nationalism espoused by the Pentagon chief.
“These calls have one damn thing in freaking common; our MRFF clients [service members who seek MRFF aid] report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new ‘biblically-sanctioned’ war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian ‘End Times’ as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation,” MRFF president and founder Mikey Weinstein, a veteran of the Air Force and the Reagan White House, told Larsen.
Also, Craig:
Christianity is not suited for secular politics or theocracy.
I agree on the latter. Disagree strongly on the former. Our faith has or should have impacts on our policies we advocate. The distinction, as always, is that we ought not say or suggest, "Because I believe Jesus wants X, that we MUST change our nation to X..." One can either make a rational case for it or one can't.
In intra-Christian conversations, by all means, make your Christian case. But not as a reason in the public as to why the public should embrace X.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/military-leaders-iran-war-trump-172548999.html
One "combat unit commander" no rank, no nothing, but sure. Expressing his personal opinion? Evidence for your claim.
I could go back to the Revolution and find similar things being said, but it'd be pointless.
Again, not exactly wielding some significant amount of power over policy or anything.
So, repeating what seems to be a different version of the first story magically makes it two instances. But hey if you want to argue that one "commander" expressing his opinion makes this widespread, then proof please.
Let's leave aside the apparent contradiction for a second, and take this in the context of what I've said throughout this thread.
I'll try to make this simpler for you.
Obviously, people's faith informs their decisions. But, you've been talking about a mythical Christian Theocracy.
The whole last/first, first/last things goes against the very nature of secular government. I'm freaking agreeing with you and you bitch about some nitpicky bullshit. There is nothing in scripture that can be used to justify a Christian theocracy. Hence, anyone advocating for one is a false teacher, wolf is sheep's clothing. Both Jesus and Paul warned about these types of people.
It's cute that you put your own little limits on things.
Dan using "ought" language makes no sense given that he has no actual grounds for a standard that leads to the ability to demand that people "ought" to do something. As long is he's clear that it's based on his subjective, arbitrary, personal, hunches it's harmless.
I'm curious to know what right wing CN is advocating for "forced abortions".
I don't even care what the NAR says about itself, or identifies as CN. I could care less about their politics, it's their theology that sucks.
This is why Trump says such bizarre things about Christianity, he's getting advice from heretics.
Post a Comment