• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Christian nationalism" is a real threat.

Bob001

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
16,613
Location
US of A
Survey indicates that a lot of Americans identify themselves as or support "Christian nationalists."
“Christian nationalism is a new term for a worldview that has been with us since the founding of our country — the idea that America is destined to be a promised land for European Christians,” PRRI president and founder Robert P. Jones explained in a news release on the survey of more than 6,000 Americans. “While most Americans today embrace pluralism and reject this anti-democratic claim, majorities of white evangelical Protestants and Republicans remain animated by this vision of a white Christian America.”

The poll used the following beliefs to gauge how deeply respondents embraced Christian nationalism:
“The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.”

“U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.”

“If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.”

“Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.”

“God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.”
PRRI found that 10 percent (“adherents”) of American adults believe in these ideas overwhelmingly or completely; 19 percent agree but not completely (“sympathizers”); 39 percent disagree (“skeptics”) but not completely; and 29 percent disagree completely (“rejecters”).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/09/prri-poll-christian-nationalism/
 
Whenever religion steps out of its wheelhouse, the realm of the internal and private, getting its tentacles intertwined in government, things go to hell. America is striving to get there.

To nip this in the bud, any religious entity touching even peripherally on politics should be taxed. For they are clearly acting outside their mandate, the care and feeding of the soul.

But then, the fundies already have effectively infiltrated and corrupted the political sphere. Take this "prayer breakfast" silliness as an example, or the Paula White shenanigans in the White House. And consider that no person running for office would dare suggest he's agnostic, let alone atheist. Any measures to curb the clearly political activities of churches now would be to almost invoke hellfire, and indeed the very notion would probably be instantly rejected in a Pavlovian recoiling born of long conditioning under religion's intrusive, corrosive, malefic design.

Wake up, Yankistan. A Christian version of Iran is stirring. If not the American Taliban.
 
Last edited:
Whenever religion steps out of its wheelhouse, the realm of the internal and private, getting its tentacles intertwined in government, things go to hell. America is striving to get there.

To nip this in the bud, any religious entity touching even peripherally on politics should be taxed. For they are clearly acting outside their mandate, the care and feeding of the soul.

But then, the fundies already have effectively infiltrated and corrupted the political sphere. Take this "prayer breakfast" silliness as an example, or the Paula White shenanigans in the White House. And consider that no person running for office would dare suggest he's agnostic, let alone atheist. Any measures to curb the clearly political activities of churches now would be to almost invoke hellfire, and indeed the very notion would probably be instantly rejected in a Pavlovian recoiling born of long conditioning under religion's intrusive, corrosive, malefic design.

Wake up, Yankistan. A Christian version of Iran is stirring. If not the American Taliban.

I agree 100%. Nothing good comes from being ruled by religion. I can think of numerous examples where rule by religion was/is disastrous to freedom and none that wasn't: England under Cromwell, Massachusetts Bay Colony under the Puritans, pre-statehood Utah, and religious cults like the FLDS, Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians. Rule by religion and rule by authoritarianism go hand in hand.
 
Our history with religion is really weird and not at all what we are taught in school. Our so-called "Protestant work ethic" comes from the Northeast, which was "settled" by small factions of Christians from England and Northern Europe like the Puritans. We're told they were looking for "Religious freedom". Well, they want the kind of "religious freedom" right-wingers today are looking for. The freedom to impress their religion on everyone else.

This was very different from the colonists in Virginia and the rest of the South. They were more of a weird mix between proto-capitalists and feudal lords. For them, religion was more of a social affair than anything. There was even a little of what could be considered socialism sprinkled throughout the North and South.

And then you have the French, who took a very "when in Rome" approach when dealing with the native populations they came across. They basically adopted and adjusted to whatever they came across so they could conduct trade. I'm not even going into the Spanish and various waves of immigrants that brought their own takes of faith. And, oh ya, the people who were already here when whitey showed up and Africans dragged here as slaves.

For most of American history, the majority vaguely identified as some sort of Christian but didn't really fall into a specific dogma. Publicly throwing around Christianity was usually just a cover to do something awful to "others". We really didn't call ourselves a "Christian nation". in fact, the Second Great Awakening, which gave birth to denominations like the Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists, was centered around the idea that the Founders weren't religious enough and America needed to become a Christian nation.

The modern roots of the evangelical movement we see taking over take shape in the 1930s, in Hollywood of all places. There was a minister named James Fifield who worked with corporate backers to attack the New Deal and made capitalism vs communism central to his ministry.

And in the 1960s, Ike wanted to promote spiritualism to further differentiate the US from the Soviet Union. Granted, Ike wasn't pushing the toxic form of Christianity we are threatened by of today. He even worked to have more synagogues and mosques built. He simply believed that everyone should express some form of faith. It did lead to the intertwining of religion and government (well further so) and the rewriting of American history to be a lot more "Christian" than it really is.

Kevin Kruse's One Nation Under God goes into this particular movement and how it led up to a lot of notable figures we see today.
 
Last edited:
Excellent and truthful post, Donal.

I think one of the greatest historical myths widely believed by Americans is that the Puritans came to the New World in search of religious freedom. In truth, it was the freedom to practice ONLY their religion as all other religions were banned.
 
Pardon me, folks, but at our grade school we knew that the Puritans were authoritarian asshats. Old, very old stuff.

As to the survey cited above, I wonder what our baseline is. Again, adverting to my childhood (as history, my recollections are worth about 25 kopeks, but at least they go a long way back), every adult was ready to assert that the USA was a Christian country -- and then drop the subject as not worth debating. Were opinion surveys like the above conducted back then? (Dunno. Betcha, though.) Would results have been much different back in the 40s & 50s? Dunno, etc.

I think that the menace posed by the chrrrrristianist nationalistics today is due to the unhinged political atmosphere. It's okay to try to shout down democracy -- hell, and knowledge and plain objective facts -- and to blair any idiocy that makes you feel good.

Aggressive christianism always makes the worst elements in society feel very good about themselves. Today, they look ready to act on their ugly desires.

ETA: That'll be 25 kopeks, please. I promise not to spend it all in the same place.
 
Last edited:
I think one of the greatest historical myths widely believed by Americans is that the Puritans came to the New World in search of religious freedom. In truth, it was the freedom to practice ONLY their religion as all other religions were banned.

Pardon me, folks, but at our grade school we knew that the Puritans were authoritarian asshats. Old, very old stuff.

Outside the USA, we were taught that the Puritans did not so much seek to go to America as they were forced out first from England then from Holland. They made themselves so unlikeable and difficult that they had to go somewhere where "nobody else" was. At that time, the American colony was considered "mostly empty"...apart from some heathen natives, of course, who could be displaced without many qualms.


With that precedent in mind, I will repeat the recommendation that Christian nationalists should emulate the Puritans...and be forced to go live in an empty place, there to make their own colony and live as they wish. I previously suggested Attu, but that has valuable wildlife. But somewhere near there should hold them all.
 
Pardon me, folks, but at our grade school we knew that the Puritans were authoritarian asshats. Old, very old stuff.

As to the survey cited above, I wonder what our baseline is. Again, adverting to my childhood (as history, my recollections are worth about 25 kopeks, but at least they go a long way back), every adult was ready to assert that the USA was a Christian country -- and then drop the subject as not worth debating. Were opinion surveys like the above conducted back then? (Dunno. Betcha, though.) Would results have been much different back in the 40s & 50s? Dunno, etc.

I think that the menace posed by the chrrrrristianist nationalistics today is due to the unhinged political atmosphere. It's okay to try to shout down democracy -- hell, and knowledge and plain objective facts -- and to blair any idiocy that makes you feel good.

Aggressive christianism always makes the worst elements in society feel very good about themselves. Today, they look ready to act on their ugly desires.

ETA: That'll be 25 kopeks, please. I promise not to spend it all in the same place.

It's good to hear that you were taught the truth about the Puritans, but it's still a commonly believed myth that they represent freedom of religion. Many people also think the Pilgrims and Puritans are interchangeable.
 
Attu isn't big enough to hold all of them, is it? I ask because the first winter would surely thin their numbers. The second winter would persuade the rest of them to turn atheist.

Just makes me wonder, how many of these 100% Murrican God-botherers are there? Where are they concentrated? What's their average age? IQ? Weight? Reading level? No. of teeth?

Enquiring minds and all that.
 
Well, that's disturbing.

Actually I find it quite hopeful, given that the two categories that together comprise all of the non-disagreeing responders is 29%, which is the same as the categorical rejectors and then there's the mostly disagreeing group on top of that. They may be a significant minority but there's as many who completely reject their ideas as there are those who hold them--and those who only kinda hold them.
 
Actually I find it quite hopeful, given that the two categories that together comprise all of the non-disagreeing responders is 29%, which is the same as the categorical rejectors and then there's the mostly disagreeing group on top of that. They may be a significant minority but there's as many who completely reject their ideas as there are those who hold them--and those who only kinda hold them.

Actual majorities mean absolutely nothing to the religious right republicans. Nothing whatsoever. Gawd is on their side. You're going to Hell if you voted for Clinton or Biden.
Oh, and the Constitution is written word for word in the Bible. Not that most of them have read either.
 
Attu isn't big enough to hold all of them, is it? I ask because the first winter would surely thin their numbers. The second winter would persuade the rest of them to turn atheist.

Just makes me wonder, how many of these 100% Murrican God-botherers are there? Where are they concentrated? What's their average age? IQ? Weight? Reading level? No. of teeth?

Enquiring minds and all that.
According to Wikipedia, Attu is 344.7 sq mi (893 km2). At a couple of square metres per body, that is plenty. Anyway, the transportees should need standing room only because all they do is march and shout. You are right - hopefully the first winter will weed out the stragglers and the weak. But that's in accordance with their creed, so all good. If they turn atheist, that's no compensation. They made their bed - they can lie on it. If the seagulls will leave them alone.
 
Excellent and truthful post, Donal.

I think one of the greatest historical myths widely believed by Americans is that the Puritans came to the New World in search of religious freedom. In truth, it was the freedom to practice ONLY their religion as all other religions were banned.

That's certainly one way of putting it; but it might be just as misleading. The Puritans who left England left because their dissent over the Church of England's practices as "too Catholic" and ostentatious (particularly upon the accession of Charles I) got them literally persecuted there.

It is technically true that they would not have allowed any other flavor of religion at the Massachusetts Bay Colony while they were in charge there; but that's rather a moot point as the colony was effectively a Puritan commune. The people who founded it went there specifically to be Puritans, and if you didn't agree with them in every detail you were free to just go start your own colony somewhere else (which is exactly what happened, several times).
 
That's certainly one way of putting it; but it might be just as misleading. The Puritans who left England left because their dissent over the Church of England's practices as "too Catholic" and ostentatious (particularly upon the accession of Charles I) got them literally persecuted there.

It is technically true that they would not have allowed any other flavor of religion at the Massachusetts Bay Colony while they were in charge there; but that's rather a moot point as the colony was effectively a Puritan commune. The people who founded it went there specifically to be Puritans, and if you didn't agree with them in every detail you were free to just go start your own colony somewhere else (which is exactly what happened, several times).

ANd please don't confuse Plymouth Plantation and Massachusetts bay Colony. Two different colonies.

'and if you didn't agree with them in every detail you were free to just go start your own colony somewhere else (which is exactly what happened, several times).'

Roger Williams being the most famous example. He founded Rhode Island.
 
I agree Christian Nationalism is a real threat, but I question some of those poll numbers.
 
Ya, one self-identifying poll doesn't mean much. What concerns me is the fever of the believers. How far are they willing to go to push their beliefs and how far are the rest of us willing to go to stop them?
 
I agree 100%. Nothing good comes from being ruled by religion. I can think of numerous examples where rule by religion was/is disastrous to freedom and none that wasn't: England under Cromwell, Massachusetts Bay Colony under the Puritans, pre-statehood Utah, and religious cults like the FLDS, Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians. Rule by religion and rule by authoritarianism go hand in hand.


The thread is about Christian nationalism, not about religion in general, and I think that it's important to distinguish between religions.
I don't know much about the Quakers, but based on what I've read they seem to have been better than most other Christians in many respects, at least historically: anti-slavery, pro women's rights, faster to accept evolution than most other Christian denominations. There are even "Nontheist Quakers, whose spiritual practice does not rely on the existence of God," which appears to have been a fairly early version of modern 'cultural Christianity'. And "To differing extents, the Friends avoid creeds and hierarchical structures."

It sounds like a Christian version of moving away from religion (or at least from religious fundamentalism), very much unlike and in opposition to Christian nationalism:
Stop Trump(ism) (Quaker Socialist Society, May 27, 2019)
Quaker Lobby Supports the Impeachment of Trump (BusinessWire, Jan 12, 2021)
 
Actually I find it quite hopeful, given that the two categories that together comprise all of the non-disagreeing responders is 29%, which is the same as the categorical rejectors and then there's the mostly disagreeing group on top of that. They may be a significant minority but there's as many who completely reject their ideas as there are those who hold them--and those who only kinda hold them.

But which of the groups is the most exercised, energized?

A majority want abortion to be available. But an exercised, energized minority is taking that away. An exercised, energized minority steered civilized 1930s Germany to ruin.

It is foolish to underestimate the exercised, energized minority.
 

Back
Top Bottom