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.
16 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.
Dan:
"In the US, about 1/3 of the population identifies as Christian nationalists or sympathetic to Christian nationalists."
Craig:
This is quite a claim with no evidence or no definition.
Also Dan, citing this quite extensive source by way of actual evidence (as opposed to "no evidence") and actual definitions (as opposed to "no definition").
https://prri.org/research/mapping-christian-nationalism-across-the-50-states-insights-from-prris-2025-american-values-atlas/
Perhaps you missed it?
In that quite damning bit of bipartisan research, PRRI defines CN as
Based on respondents’ answers to
(1) The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation,
(2) U.S. laws should be based on Christian values,
(3) If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore,
(4) Being Christian is an important part of being truly American, and
(5) God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society
THAT is the definition/criteria PRRI provided for Christian nationalism and which one third of our nation and which more than half of GOP accept as their belief or that they are at least sympathetic to those beliefs.
Again, perhaps you missed it. The PRRI report was quite dense and full of information.
Now that you've seen it, do you find that damning for the conservatives who affirm such (since you say you do not count yourself as a Christian nationalist)? Would you rebuke conservatives who held to these ideas/ideals? If not, does that not mean you ARE sympathetic to CN?
I'll be getting to this double-decker Trabue crap-sandwich ASAP. BELIEVE THAT!
I don't disagree with anything Craig has said except that on at least a few points, he doesn't go far enough to expose the evil in Dan's BS comment.
---Art
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/prri-media-bias
Well, let's start with the obvious, that PRRI is a left leaning organization. Which calls into question any conclusions it might reach about those to the right of the organization. Oh and they're funded by a Unitarian Universalist foundation and two other foundations that support a variety of left wing causes.
They draw their conclusions based on 5 whole questions asked to 6% of the population. So, let's slow your roll on presenting this as some definitive arbiter of Truth.
Nowhere in your link did they define Christian Nationalism, and the questions they ask are so vague as to be seemingly pointless.
For example (after having to look through the appendices) "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values,".
1. Given your repeated citation of your Jesus proof texts regarding immigration, it seems clear that you would prefer that at least some of our laws be based on "Christian values".
2. The simple reality is that the basis of English and American law is in Jewish and Christian laws, concepts, and values.
3. If given the choice between laws based in "Christian values" and "Islamic values" renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens was clear that laws based in "Christian values" are preferable.
4. There is a significant difference between laws based in "Christian values" and laws plucked straight from Scripture.
Now, we don't know the exact wording of the questions asked, because of how the appendix was formatted, but it seems possible that there is a wide range of potential reasons why someone might answer yes, that doesn't make them some sort of radical.
That's not a definition. It's a list of questions. It's a list of questions intended to get a yes or no answer with no additional information as to why people answered that way. It doesn't surprise me that you put so much faith is this, and ignore the data about left wing folx, political violence and mental health issues.
I rarely "rebuke" anyone who's political beliefs differ from mine. I understand that political beliefs exist on a spectrum and that all of those beliefs are protected under the First Amendment.
If, at some point, some of this is actually put forth as a projected law, I'll concern myself with it.
I didn't want to give his nonsense too much attention.
Those who are here to REALLY change the USA into a "religious nation" are Muslims. They are in the USA for one reason and one reason only, as stated by their own leaders, is complete takeover by conquest.
Islam nationalism is, next to Demokrat takeover, is the most dangerous ideology in the USA.
And Glenn and his sort don't sound crazy or racist or xenophobic when he makes such decrees. Keep telling yourselves that.
But this is your chance to take a stand, Craig, and be sure to let the more extremist sort of conservative "christian nationalism" is not something you approve of or will abide.
Or just join in their song. Your call.
"Red and yellow, black and white,
God only loves ~1/4 of those
Jesus hates the little muslims of the world..."
Dan has show hit total, abject ignorance of Islam. It's is the most dangerous religion in the world and is still murdering Jews and Christians around the world. Dan obviously never read the Qur'an or the Hadith or even the history of Islam. No, Jesus would not love pagans who worship a false god. Dan's stupid song is nothing but gross stupidity. And here I thought Dan couldn't get any stupider or more ignorant but he just proved me wrong when he thinks being against Islam is racist (Islam isn't a race) and xenophobic when every knowledgable and sane person should be Islamaphobic!
Dan,
The problem with your dismissive BS, is that we can look at the real evidence in the real world and see cities like Hamtramk and Dearborne MI as well as what is happening in the UK. We see the fact that cities like Hamtramk have banned pride flags, and are actively trying to push non Muslims out. But you'll keep your head in the sand because it's not happening in your back yard yet, so you can ignore what is happening elsewhere.
Pointing out things that can be seen by anyone who looks isn't racist (Islam isn't a race), or xenophobic, paying attention to Muslim leaders who state openly that their goal is to "conquer" Europe and the US. Hell, Muslims still think that they somehow have some magical claim to Spain and Portugal because they conquered those countries centuries ago and they want them back.
I'm not taking my cue from Glenn, I'm taking my cue from Muslim leaders and clerics. I simply observe what is happening in the world outside of my neighborhood.
No one would say that Jesus "hates" Muslims, but it's safe to say that Jesus might think it'd be better if they followed The Way, The Truth, and The Life while cutting back on the whole rape, murder, Sharia thing. The Salvation Jesus' brought is definitely available for Muslims.
"Dan has show hit total" should be "shown his total"
Craig:
We see the fact that cities like Hamtramk have banned pride flags
"Those people are behaving an awful lot like our conservative president and his extremist allies are acting..." is not a strong selling point.
I am opposed to those few Muslims who might ban Pride flags on city property, just as I am opposed to this administration doing the same, as well as kicking LGBTQ folk out of the military, as well as banning LGBTQ books from school libraries, etc. It's ALL wrong, whether it's Muslim extremists or Conservative extremists.
The thing is, I'll remind you, we only have 4.5 million Muslims (ALL kinds of Muslims, including progressive and moderate ones who would oppose this kind of thing) vs over 100 million actual Christian nationalist extremists. BOTH sorts of extremists need to be opposed.
The thing is: Rational people can recognize that not all Muslims are extremists, just as not all Christians are Christian nationalist extremists. You welcome the welcoming ones and stand opposed to the oppressors.
That would be a swing and a miss for you, Craig and Glenn. You're showing your total ignorance of real world realities.
Craig:
and are actively trying to push non Muslims out. But you'll keep your head in the sand because it's not happening in your back yard yet, so you can ignore what is happening elsewhere.
...he said, with NO support for such nonsense. Religious extremism of all sorts (Muslim, Christian nationalists, white christian nationalists, Mormon, Jewish, etc) are something to keep an eye out for and of course, I do.
That some conservative religionists are fearful of some Muslim extremists and irrationally thinking "they're ALL like that!" is not a case for taking such conservative religionists seriously, especially when they post fearmongering gossip with no support for their silly little schoolyard gossip and spooky stories.
I'm no more worried about a Muslim extremist "take-over" than I am about a group of unicorns taking over cities in the US. On the other hand, CN and their allies ARE currently wreaking havoc on human rights for citizens, here. Now.
By all means, join me in standing opposed to the CN extremists who are actively a threat (Project 2025, anyone?) and if and when Muslim extremists become a problem, you can count on me standing opposed to them.
Until such time as you take a principled stand for religious liberty for all, you're not being a serious adult or good citizen in a free republic.
When I want to learn about Muslims and Islam’s goals, I listen to Muslims.
When I see 250,000 girls and women raped repeatedly, brutally, and systematically for a period of years by (almost entirely) Muslims, I pay attention. When I don’t see “moderate” Muslims speaking out against this outrage, I pay attention. When I see Muslim elected officials do nothing, I pay attention. When I see Muslims controlling US cities and restricting freedoms based on Islamic doctrine, I pay attention. When I see school districts forced to only serve Halal meat (a much less humane process), I pay attention.
Military service isn’t a right or guarantee. It’s also not a blank check for taxpayers to fund elective surgery. Likewise, not every person qualifies for every role in the military, lowering standards for diversity degrades the capability of the unit.
Further, not every single book ever printed belongs in every school library.
Name one US city which is completely controlled by “CN” and is making law and policy based entirely on their religious system?
The problem is that Islam is a political system, based on conquest, with a religious component. Christianity is not.
The fact that your “opposition “ to the Islamic control of several cities in the US and the imposition of law based on Islamic religious doctrine, amounts to “Oh well, I oppose it in the abstract but won’t actually do or say anything negative about it. But, the mythical “CN” takeover is what I’m going to get my panties in a wad about.” Isn’t a good look for you.
What, specifically, separates a Muslim extremist from a progressive Muslim or a moderate Muslim?
Rational people who STUDY Islam, KNOW that ALL Muslim are "extremists." Their doctrine calls for them to feign friendship and peaceable until they are in a position of power. Perfidy--ever hear of it??? They are taught from the beginning to LIE until in a position of power.
Oh but Dan has become a useful idiot for them.
I'm willing to grant the possibility that there may be a few who aren't devout, but the vast majority of devout Muslims believe the Quran and all of it's dictates. If for no other reason that the risk of death.
I could be wrong, but doesn't a religion who's penalty for leaving that religion the death penalty have extremism kind of baked in?
Dan is making it clear that he's only really worried about one kind of nationalism enough to actually do or say anything about it. He's also made it clear that Muslim extremism or nationalism outside of his bubble doesn't really concern him at all.
Post a Comment