I saw something this morning bashing "Christian Nationalism" again, and I had to wonder why "Christian Nationalism" is the target of so much hate. I don't see anyone objecting to Muslim nationalism which, worldwide, is much more prevalent and much more dangerous, likewise the Atheist Nationalism we see in places like China and N Korea seems pretty toxic as well. I guess I'm wondering what the problem really is.
2 comments:
In the US, about 1/3 of the population identifies as Christian nationalists or sympathetic to Christian nationalists.
ALL Muslims (there is no category for Muslim Nationalists in the US) are 1.3% of the population.
In the US, we are reasonably concerned about Christian Nationalism because THEY ARE HERE and trying to (and ARE) impacting policy. They are taking away rights and removing protections. This IS a reason for concern.
Here in the US, Muslims and atheists are doing none of that.
115 million CN in the US, vs 4.5 million Muslims (most of who are apparently not the CN equivalent).
That is why it is raised as a concern, here, where we live and are responsible for setting policy.
https://prri.org/research/mapping-christian-nationalism-across-the-50-states-insights-from-prris-2025-american-values-atlas/
So, to answer your question with the obvious answer: The problem HERE, really is Christian Nationalism, far and away over against any similar threat from Muslims or atheists.
These militant "crusader-wannabe" "christian nationalists" are
* removing/limiting women's health care rights (the rights we've enjoyed of women being able to make their own medical decisions)
* removing/limiting transgender people's rights to self-determination, as well as parents of transgender people to self-determine what's right for their family;
* kicking LGBTQ and women out of the military or at least cutting back on their advancement opportunities;
* Talking about taking over other nations willy nilly;
* treating immigrants and refugees as enemies and causing harm to them;
etc, etc, etc We are concerned about CN types HERE, in the US now because they are a threat to human rights in OUR nation and beyond now. Not Muslims. Not atheists.
How do you not understand this?
I know, it's because you don't agree that the oppression they're (you??) are causing IS oppression, in spite of the actual, real limitation of actual rights and the actual harm they're doing.
Are you in the 1/3 who self-identifies as a (white?) Christian nationalist?
Having raised the real and legitimate alarm about CN, I do allow that for any group - Muslims, "muslim extremists," pagans, CN or regular Christians, etc - there is a range of what they believe. I don't doubt that 1/3 of the US is sympathetic to Christian Nationalism, but probably not all of that 1/3 are as radical as the more extreme folks in that category. But it's that they're SYMPATHETIC to the message of CN that is still a concern. They may not support the idea of imprisoning or banning Muslims or taking away marriage equality, etc, but will they speak out against it when the more extreme in their group does just that?
That's the real concern.
"In the US, about 1/3 of the population identifies as Christian nationalists or sympathetic to Christian nationalists."
This is quite a claim with no evidence or no definition.
It's cute that you restrict your concerns about nationalism to just the US. That there are almost 60 countries full of Muslim nationalists, seems to not concern you. That many of the citizens of those countries immigrate and retain their Muslim nationalist connection to their home countries seems like it could be a problem.
I guess you've come up with your own personal definition based on yrou pet peeves. I'll address them.
1. Abortion (for some reason you're afraid to say what you really mean) has been returned to the states to regulate. Your complain is that unrestricted/unregulated abortion is not federal law. SCOTUS legislated when they decided Roe and finally the power was returned to the states where it belongs.
2. Given what we know now, and acknowledging that Europe has led the way, placing restrictions on permanently and irreversibly altering the physical bodies of children seems like a good thing. No one is objecting to adults mutilating themselves on their own dime. It seems obvious to many that taxpayers funding these mutilations for those in the military or in prison is a poor use of taxpayer dollars.
3. The case for gays not serving in the military has nothing to do with Christianity or nationalism, but with unit cohesion and fraternization. Likewise, lowering standards to accommodate women in certain roles has nothing to do with Christianity or nationalism.
4. Obviously you have trouble with discerning the difference between speech and action, or any understanding of how negotiation works. Again no religious or nationalistic motivation.
5. Again, there is no connection to religion or nationalism. Expecting immigrants to follow the laws and to assimilate seems like a reasonable minimum.
"How do you not understand this?"
Why not simply say "I" instead of presenting yourself as the spokesperson or representative of some vague, undefined group?
I understand that you choose to focus on one thing, while ignoring other similar things, why you make those choices escapes me (other than partisanship and prejudice).
"I know, it's because you don't agree that the oppression..."
A bit presumptuous. Although, I don't believe that restrictions and limitations are automatically oppression. By your standard, having age limits for voting and driving are "oppression". Coming from someone who wants to impose limits on all sorts of things and people, this is pretty hilarious.
"Are you in the 1/3 who self-identifies as a (white?) Christian nationalist?"
No.
Post a Comment