Christian Nationalism

[seayakin]

Given Mike Johnson was elected speaker and he is a Christian nationalist I started to wonder more specifically what policies the Christian nationalists would push if elected to a majority. Belonging to some atheist organizations I have seen some take action requests/legislative alerts etc. I’m just trying to wrap my head around what are the specific threats to freedom of belief or non-belief and how far they might go.

There are a number of newspaper articles but I found this Washington Post article helpful.

There are some obvious things they would do immediately if they had the power:

• Federal government declare the US is a Christian nation
• National ban on abortions

There are other policy goals they seem to have but are vague and seem to vary among Christian groups

• Federal government openly advocate for Christian values (and I see the problem with this in defining who’s Christian values - Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic?)
• Churches allowed to veto legislation (Who’s church? Would they try to amend the constitution to make it possible?)
• Require and oath to Christianity for leadership positions

I find the prospect of what Christian nationalists doing if they gain control pretty scary. At the same time, I do believe they have a long way to go to get this kind of control.

How far would they go?

I could see where if they got control it would be incremental. Smaller things at first until power could be consolidated. Or would they end up following apart under sectarian divides?

[Beelzebuddy]

How far would they go? They're Nationalist Christians. How far do you think Nat-C's want to go?

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

How far would they go? They're Nationalist Christians. How far do you think Nat-C's want to go?

I don’t think there is unified think among the Christian nationalists. I think the extremists would establish a “Christian Republic” similar to the Islamic Republic in Iran.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fidelio]

A Vermin here. They will do any and everything destroy The United States of America they possibly can all the while claiming to be persicuted. That's an upper case V by the way buster.

[Stacyhs]

Christian Nationalism is authoritarian by its very nature because most organized religions have an authoritarian hierarchy...mostly patriarchal...including Catholics, Mormans, Evangelicals, and Southern Baptists.

They would have no problem with extending that male authoritarianism into the government via policy and legislation.

[The Great Zaganza]

There might be a force in the coming to challenge Christian Nationalism:

Christian socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...rect-democracy

[pgwenthold]

Sharia law is ok as long as it's Christian

[Nosi]

I think anyone female will lose most rights.

[bruto]

I think the simple answer is that they'll go as far as they can, up to and past the point of negating their Christianity and destroying the nation, because they've transferred anything that resembled a positive goal into the goal of destroying their perceived enemies. Once the torches are lit, many things will burn.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by seayakin

How far would they go?

Probably as far as they can get away with. This would lead to pushback though since I think there's still a majority who don't want to be ruled by Nat-C's.

Quote:

I could see where if they got control it would be incremental. Smaller things at first until power could be consolidated. Or would they end up following apart under sectarian divides?

Sectarian divides are probably one of the issues that would crop up if they ever managed to gain power. But secular pushback would probably come before we get to that stage.

[Stacyhs]

I never thought MAGATS would take over Congress or a good percentage of the states, but they have.

[Resume]

I've mentioned this in other threads; in the run-up to the 2016 elections, there was a roundtable of talking heads discussing evangelical influence, and one of the commenters opined that they were dead on arrival.

I don't recall who that person was other than he was laughably dead wrong. Once again: These people are telling you their plans when in power, and how the plan to retain power; believe them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Resume

I've mentioned this in other threads; in the run-up to the 2016 elections, there was a roundtable of talking heads discussing evangelical influence, and one of the commenters opined that they were dead on arrival.

I don't recall who that person was other than he was laughably dead wrong. Once again: These people are telling you their plans when in power, and how the plan to retain power; believe them.

As the saying goes, "When someone tells you who they are, believe them."

[Blue Mountain]

Isn't there something in the States called the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[KDLarsen]

My pessimism at it relates to US politics would suggest that they won't be as straight forward about it, as long as that pesky Establishment Clause is still around.

Instead I'd imagine them going hard on mandatory school prayers (fat chance you'll hear a islamic or buddhist prayer), overt support for those crisis pregnancy centers, and generally a lot of wink and nod legislation which won't mention christianity specifically, but is entirely rooted in religion.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Isn't there something in the States called the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

yes, but you have to interpret it according to Scripture, or you will miss the important point that Our Type of Christianity has all the rights, and all the other so-called religions have all the obligations - as God and the founding Fathers intended.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by seayakin

Given Mike Johnson was elected speaker and he is a Christian nationalist I started to wonder more specifically what policies the Christian nationalists would push if elected to a majority. Belonging to some atheist organizations I have seen some take action requests/legislative alerts etc. I’m just trying to wrap my head around what are the specific threats to freedom of belief or non-belief and how far they might go.

There are a number of newspaper articles but I found this Washington Post article helpful.

There are some obvious things they would do immediately if they had the power:

• Federal government declare the US is a Christian nation
• National ban on abortions

There are other policy goals they seem to have but are vague and seem to vary among Christian groups

• Federal government openly advocate for Christian values (and I see the problem with this in defining who’s Christian values - Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic?)
• Churches allowed to veto legislation (Who’s church? Would they try to amend the constitution to make it possible?)
• Require and oath to Christianity for leadership positions

I find the prospect of what Christian nationalists doing if they gain control pretty scary. At the same time, I do believe they have a long way to go to get this kind of control.

How far would they go?

I could see where if they got control it would be incremental. Smaller things at first until power could be consolidated. Or would they end up following apart under sectarian divides?

Given that the christo-nazi faction is a coalition of various religious groups who hate all the other religious groups in the coalition with a burning passion, I'm betting a massive civil war would break out immediately on them gaining power.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Isn't there something in the States called the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is also a second amendment written to make it nigh impossible for private gun ownership. Look how well that worked out.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

My pessimism at it relates to US politics would suggest that they won't be as straight forward about it, as long as that pesky Establishment Clause is still around.

Instead I'd imagine them going hard on mandatory school prayers (fat chance you'll hear a islamic or buddhist prayer), overt support for those crisis pregnancy centers, and generally a lot of wink and nod legislation which won't mention christianity specifically, but is entirely rooted in religion.

I grew up in the UK in the 70's and 80's and was subjected to 12 years of daily religious assemblies. Very few of my classmates turned out to be at all religious - then again we weren't being brainwashed at home.

Prayers in school would simply be a symptom. The bigger issue IMO is the hold that (Christian) religion has on US society as a whole. FFS when around 50% of people don't believe in evolution there's something fundamentally wrong - prayers in school (or not) wouldn't even cause the needle to move IMO.

[8enotto]

In public schools we did the pledge first thing each day but no prayer per se, just a strong hint to god stuff.
But that pledge was even gone by 5th grade.
The parochial schools had the kids go to a church service daily. Probably still do. No flags in the corner of those classrooms.

None of the kids seemed to care.

I was sujected to heavy religion in home life from both fundies and catholic. Both saying the other is dead wrong.
Leaving me to make a choice so I did. They were both right. Religion is dead wrong.

Now decades later only in the deepest regions of the bible belt will prayer in public school be done, with about a tiny percentage of it actually resulting in faith of some sort.

The "prayer required" best intentions will ultimately be fluffed off at street level by everyone. Same as it ever was, the religious will applaud and watch as no one else cares. But they can pray if they want to.

[Upchurch]

The one silver lining about Christian Nationalism is that there is no universal kind of Christianity. If they were ever to get a solid foothold and no longer have a strong external foe, they will attack themselves for not being the right kind of Christian enough. Note the current house GOP.

[MarkCorrigan]

How far would they go?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

How far would they go?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...ltGnw&usqp=CAU

Yep.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The one silver lining about Christian Nationalism is that there is no universal kind of Christianity. If they were ever to get a solid foothold and no longer have a strong external foe, they will attack themselves for not being the right kind of Christian enough. Note the current house GOP.

I dunno. a lot of the Catholics I am around sound a lot like the far right-evangelicals. And they aren't big fans of the current Pope, either. If push came to shove, I bet a whole bunch of them would end up "born again".

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Donal

I dunno. a lot of the Catholics I am around sound a lot like the far right-evangelicals. And they aren't big fans of the current Pope, either. If push came to shove, I bet a whole bunch of them would end up "born again".

Yeah, Catholics don't realize the evangelicals are not on their side. But they still try to cozy to the evangelicals.

I saw a few years ago a Catholic newsletter where they were coming out in support of an effort to display the 10 Commandments. I found it surprising (not really) because the version of the 10C that was going up was not the same as the version in the Catholic catechism. But imposing the 10C is more important than which version it is, I guess.

Then again, never forget that the famous "no prayers over the loudspeakers at football games" was not the result of uppity atheists, it was a suit filed by Mormons and Catholics who were mad because it was only the Baptists who got to say their prayers and no one else got a chance.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, Catholics don't realize the evangelicals are not on their side. But they still try to cozy to the evangelicals.

I saw a few years ago a Catholic newsletter where they were coming out in support of an effort to display the 10 Commandments. I found it surprising (not really) because the version of the 10C that was going up was not the same as the version in the Catholic catechism. But imposing the 10C is more important than which version it is, I guess.

Then again, never forget that the famous "no prayers over the loudspeakers at football games" was not the result of uppity atheists, it was a suit filed by Mormons and Catholics who were mad because it was only the Baptists who got to say their prayers and no one else got a chance.

That's the thing. People keep making the same mistakes, thinking the enemy of the enemy is a friend. They'll go for the ten commandments together and stab each other later over the details. As long as abortion and sexual orientation are on the table they'll be kissing cousins. Knives come out later.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, Catholics don't realize the evangelicals are not on their side. But they still try to cozy to the evangelicals.

I saw a few years ago a Catholic newsletter where they were coming out in support of an effort to display the 10 Commandments. I found it surprising (not really) because the version of the 10C that was going up was not the same as the version in the Catholic catechism. But imposing the 10C is more important than which version it is, I guess.

Then again, never forget that the famous "no prayers over the loudspeakers at football games" was not the result of uppity atheists, it was a suit filed by Mormons and Catholics who were mad because it was only the Baptists who got to say their prayers and no one else got a chance.

And the fundagelicals don't realise it's the same for the catlicks*, yet they too are currently doing a bit of cosying up.

*Reich wing thinking is more prevalent among the hierarchy in catlickism than among the faithful.

[Armitage72]

Good old Jack Chick published a whole bunch of Chick Tracts about how evil Catholics are and how their false doctrines are leading people to Hell. My favorite was "The Death Cookie", about the evils of Communion.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Good old Jack Chick published a whole bunch of Chick Tracts about how evil Catholics are and how their false doctrines are leading people to Hell. My favorite was "The Death Cookie", about the evils of Communion.

Missed that one. Amazing how much of the bible Chick could deny when claiming he was the only person following it.

[8enotto]

People who can't win by force of only Thier own group will team up with others, perceived to be smaller, weaker or disposable later on.


Catholic had raw numbers. Also the most lax, useless and self centered folks making up that number.
Fundies have dogma and people willing to get into the fight to get there. But not the numbers to get nationwide support in elections. Only local stuff ln certain areas.
Tv preacher fans are the undecided swing vote. They have a strong feeling of faith but no loyalty to a certain group. A large number of them but they can't be motivated to get up and make real effort.

Together they form a formidable crowd. One that lacks cohesive ideology and will to act if it takes effort.
The ultimate green screen army of a Spartacus movie.

A parish my mother dragged me to for decades was closed because the new priest dare play cards in a Bridge club. Women were present and oh! Horrible things are going on secretly!
One small parish, one big rift and the priest left locking the door. All in one small town with zero diversity in anything. Moral high road thinking was that diversity after all.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

And the fundagelicals don't realise it's the same for the catlicks*, yet they too are currently doing a bit of cosying up.

I don't know about that. I think Catholics like to think Evangelicals are there with them. Kind of wishful thinking.

Now that Evangelicals have come around on abortion (remember, they didn't always do that), Catholics view them as allies. On the other hand, Evangelicals, at best, view Catholics as useful tools. They are very convenient to establish the Christian majority and that we have a christian nation, but, behind closed doors, they are merely Mary idolators and what they do has nothing to do with Christianity.

[Manopolus]

Well, there's a serious problem with the Christian Nationalist agenda, and it comes from, of all places, constitutional originalist doctrine if applied properly. You see, the way I've always understood it, the primary reason that the constitutional convention rejected the notion of establishing a national religion was the notion that you had to come to God through choice, and not because of social pressure or force.

And that is entirely in line with the "liberal" reading of the 2nd amendment whether you're a Methodist preacher (which is where that concept came from) or not. It was fairly clearly the deciding factor. It's kind of ironic that the concept came from Protestantism, itself... later to be promptly forgotten in the 2nd wave of hellfire evangelists who immediately followed.

Admittedly, this might be a simplified reading of it. I'm not an expert in American History.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh yay (seriously), another argument I can use against these fanatics.

I can add it to the one I use against the climate change deniers that say "God wouldn't let man destroy his creation". I reply, God made man the stewards of the Earth, do your job.

[Orphia Nay]

You need these Christians in the USA.
(Uniting Church of Australia, seen today.)

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I don't know about that. I think Catholics like to think Evangelicals are there with them. Kind of wishful thinking.

Now that Evangelicals have come around on abortion (remember, they didn't always do that), Catholics view them as allies. On the other hand, Evangelicals, at best, view Catholics as useful tools. They are very convenient to establish the Christian majority and that we have a christian nation, but, behind closed doors, they are merely Mary idolators and what they do has nothing to do with Christianity.

Remember, the rcc can barely tolerate the church of England, a denomination whose position is for the most part barely different from theirs. Trust me, they don't see fundagelicals as allies, only enemies they can for the moment work with.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Missed that one. Amazing how much of the bible Chick could deny when claiming he was the only person following it.

Don't forget this old fella Ian Paisly - only available by the Wayback archive since his death but full-blown insanity regarding the threat posed by the Papists!

Thankfully no one holding such views could ever get into power anywhere...

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by The Don

I grew up in the UK in the 70's and 80's and was subjected to 12 years of daily religious assemblies. Very few of my classmates turned out to be at all religious - then again we weren't being brainwashed at home.

Prayers in school would simply be a symptom. The bigger issue IMO is the hold that (Christian) religion has on US society as a whole. FFS when around 50% of people don't believe in evolution there's something fundamentally wrong - prayers in school (or not) wouldn't even cause the needle to move IMO.

And the unofficial national school sport was which class could reduce the RE teacher to tears fastest. I remember my RE teacher threatening to summon the Head because we 'weren't doing the balloon debate properly' (we threw the priest out first as of no value to society but I think it was keeping the prostitute in that pushed him over the edge). Trouble was, we'd prepared arguments to back up the decision. Not saying they were good arguments (I mean they were purposely designed to wind the teacher up) but they had a certain logic. He gibbed out in the end because he could see the whole class were united, calm and quite happy to go back over their arguments with the Head and show how we'd followed the brief even if he didn't like our conclusions. He clearly realised it would simply be embarrassing for him.

Things have moved on since as my kids went to the same school and the RE teacher was an atheist. Who better, as she argued, to give them an unbiased education about all the main religions.

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

reading of the 2nd amendment

Obviously, I meant the 1st Amendment. Wow. Bizarre mistake coming from me, I assure you. I just hope it isn't early Alzheimer's or something. Anyway, I couldn't resist correcting myself even though the edit feature expired. Drive on.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Manopolus

Obviously, I meant the 1st Amendment. Wow. Bizarre mistake coming from me, I assure you. I just hope it isn't early Alzheimer's or something. Anyway, I couldn't resist correcting myself even though the edit feature expired. Drive on.

Funny thing is, I read that and automatically read it as "first" anyway, owing to the context.

It's a similar issue to the insistence by some religious types that marriage is a sacrament when one of the first things the Pilgrims did when setting up a colony was to declare it a secular issue. Or the insistence by some other religious types that secular government is un-American and unholy, forgetting that the virtual inventor of explicitly secular government was the founder of Rhode Island, the devout Baptist Roger Williams (who knew a thing or two I think).

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by bruto

Funny thing is, I read that and automatically read it as "first" anyway, owing to the context.

It's a similar issue to the insistence by some religious types that marriage is a sacrament when one of the first things the Pilgrims did when setting up a colony was to declare it a secular issue. Or the insistence by some other religious types that secular government is un-American and unholy, forgetting that the virtual inventor of explicitly secular government was the founder of Rhode Island, the devout Baptist Roger Williams (who knew a thing or two I think).

Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase separation of church and state in a letter responding to the Danbury Baptist Church. At the time the Baptists felt oppressed by other denominations and in particular the Congregationalists. They had a particular problem that local governments in Connecticut were paying Congregationalist pastors.