Could it be that Christian Nationalism is just the latest bugaboo for leftists, especially those who hate anything and everything associated with Christianity, even if in name only? Not to say that CN doesn’t exist or isn’t dangerous in its most extreme manifestations, but they’re fringe folks, a tiny sliver of the broader Christian population. At their least toxic, they are just people who believe some core Judeo-Christian values should inform our laws and culture — not unlike our founders and most of our leaders prior to the mid-20th Century (whether explicitly stated or not, since explicitly stating the obvious rarely seemed necessary). Today, to explicitly connect a policy or value to Christianity puts one’s reputation as a serious person at risk, doesn’t it?
Alvin Plantinga famously defined "fundamentalist" as "stupid [S.O.B.] whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine."
One might similarly define a Christian Nationalist as "stupid [S.O.B.] whose opinions about the proper role of Christianity in public life are considerably to the right of mine."
There is no doubt a range of views on these matters, from left to right. Some, by definition, are on the extreme right. But use of the term merely indicates that the speaker is indicating views that he believes are unacceptably far to the right, without being precise about which views, exactly, render it so.
Yes, I have seen “news” articles literally comparing Christians just hanging around chatting at a MAGA rally to literal Nazi killers, because they are supposedly “Christian Nationalists.” Maybe it’s toned down now, but there was a time where the leftist rhetoric was just over the top.
I’d be very interested to know what people who say they are aware of Christian nationalism think is happening on that front compared to whatever’s really happening. In my experience, media tends to distort stories to make their “side” look better and the “other side” more scary. Curious if that’s happening here.
I've observed on many occasions that ideology always looks like common sense from the inside. The people least likely to say they've heard of Christian Nationalism, or to dismiss it as an invention of the left, are those who endorse its central propositions. Lots of examples in the comments here
What's most surprising and interesting here is how strong the "male" component is. I generally take scaremongering about CN to be female-coded, and to be tightly linked with the pro-choice movement. See also the talk of "theocracy" during the Clinton and GWB years, which is a word I can only recall women saying in this context (which included my college years), and functionally I think it was used to mean the exact same thing as when leftists now say "Christian Nationalism".
But then perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong -- is it right-leaning men vs. right-leaning women driving this effect? Especially among the old. E.g. if he were still alive, I strongly suspect my father would be aware of the term and would give me an earful about the propagandistic mendacity of it, but I doubt my mother has ever heard of it.
I was thinking maybe the non-religious group is impacting this but not sure how much it would affect the overall stats since they’re only 1/3 of the sample. No religion trends male and the no religion group is predictive of being more aware of CN than the general sample. Probably a few factors at play here that we aren’t even thinking about too.
This is exactly what one would expect for a "bogeyman". I'm not saying that Christian Nationalism doesn't EXIST - clearly, it does. Individuals HAVE written books about it - and not just against it, but also in favor of it. I'm just saying that this is really interesting, in that it does, at very least, IMPLY that CN is not quite the danger that some on the left make it out to be.
Clearly, many on the left have heard of it. Yet those on the right, who believers in the "monstrous" nature of the beast MOST SUSPECT of literally being a part of the phenomenon, are the people least likely to even have heard of it.
I see two reasons that that might be the case. First, it's altogether possible that among folks on the religious right, the principles that make up a leftist's vision of CN are just not as widespread and salient as those on the left, who fear and/or hate CN, think they are.
The second would be that the very principles of "CN" that many on the left fear/hate (take your pick) are seen on the religious right as not even "a thing" that needs a name (CN), but rather, as just how things are and/or should be, as in the hypothetical statement "I'm not yearning for something called Christian Nationalism, I just want things to be normal."
My gut says there may be a little more of the second, but I'd imagine there's a lot of the first mixed in.
Christian Evangelicals are a political movement unchristian in concept and practice. Nationalism is a utopian platform of both extremes with a strong rhetoric of division rather than any Nationalism achieved in unity. God-honoring Americans are a minority. God help US.
I guess I’m less concerned about Christian Nationalism these days because it’s proven itself bankrupt and waning, as Christendom itself collapses around us. My bigger concern is Nationalistic Christianity, or faith that is so intertwined with the values of our culture that it is just as likely to be a carrier of that culture as it is to bear any of the tradition of being Jesus’ family. When global Christianity resembles Western institutionalism with “Christian” rituals and liturgies attached, is it still Christianity or just another set of cultural practices exported out to the rest of the world?
You're not going to be able to engage with the topic. Nobody agrees about what education is, the topic and even age, which seems clearcut, doesn't really seem to say how age ever actually engages with it. Statistics sorta falsely creates these subcultures or at least traits and then expects us to dive into headcanon between these supposed things and how we assume they'd interact. The issue is it is entirely artificial. It just seemed, for quite awhile, the journalist realism or even political realism supervened on civic realism. After all, who else is most focused on it, but chasing these journalistic realities up to their end has shown these things do no resonate with people (and this is a time when people are turbo political and internet savvy and connected). I mean you don't need a consistent definition to whip people up into a fury. It just turns out everything that is being used is just headcanon Legos to substantiate whatever journalists and politicians are trying to push. Nobody is talking about this because there's nothing really there to talk about, good definition or the exact opposite.
A parcel of data that I'd like to see is the "effect" of CN. Yes, it's a thing, and those devoted to CN call it exactly that, so let's say that it exists, for the sake of argument.
What I'm particularly interested in is, among the "nones," how many of them are nones because they view all Christians as tainted by the CN stain. Publicly, CNs are very vocal and seem powerful, as alarmingly loud they are as elected (and appointed) officials in government. But I'd like to know how the CN ethos has impacted Christianity in general. Ryan? Any thoughts?
"Local news" here in Quincy means AM stations like WTAD, owned by Sinclair. They feature Dan Bonjino and Mark Levin for hours every day. People leave these stations on in the background.
If I understood the data correctly at the links, this survey contacted over 4800 people? That seems huge for most polls I see these days. It reassures my understanding that CN is more of a media/political event than a serious threat to our nation. I do regret that the talking heads have attached the word "Christian" to such an ungodly movement.
The question can be rephrased a bit, I think, to who has heard of Manifest Destiny, which is the historical prototype. Then most people who have been to college would at least know something about it as concept of entitlement that European Christians claimed at the time, if not now.
It could also be rephrased as imposing majority culture. This existed in my lifetime. Being raised in a secular Jewish community, as the local Jewish population was becoming the town's majority of permanent residents, we certainly had vestiges of this. Elimination of formal prayer in the public schools came when I was in 4th grade. In first and second grade, after the Pledge, we had mandatory prayer for about a minute. While my best recollection of the language was that it was not overtly Christian, I remember quite well being instructed to put my palms together chest high and stare at my fingertips. That was not our prayer posture in Hebrew School. Stores stayed closed on Sundays every place I lived until 1979 when Boston experimented with Sunday openings during the holiday shopping season. It was so successful and with few enough complaints that it was made permanent. Liquor stores where I live now did not open on Sundays until this past decade. And the kosher butcher where I shopped on Sundays had to keep their sacramental wines locked in a closet and unavailable for purchase on Sundays. So while many of us may not capture the term, we have lived through how the dominant culture has infiltrated differing cultures in the past. We will recognize it again as the proposals to reintroduce some of this emerge.
Yes, I wish people would stop calling it "Christian Nationalism" and just call it "Nationalism" because the last thing it is - full of judgment, them vs. us, telling people what they can and can't do, power control, etc., and no focus on love, caring for those on the margins, servanthood, servant leadership even - well, it's just not at all Christlike.
Let's stop inserting "Christian" in the title. Please.
“Thus, the current discussion about Christian Nationalism has been largely ignored (or rejected) by those on the right side of the political spectrum, while the Left has consumed anything that they can get their hands on when it comes to the dangers of Christian Nationalism.”
This tracks for me - as a leftist I absolutely have tried to learn more about Christian Nationalism and more generally the history of the evangelical movement in US politics. What’s interesting to me is that a lot of the things I have read and watched about Christian Nationalism are from Christians, not “nones”.
Could it be that Christian Nationalism is just the latest bugaboo for leftists, especially those who hate anything and everything associated with Christianity, even if in name only? Not to say that CN doesn’t exist or isn’t dangerous in its most extreme manifestations, but they’re fringe folks, a tiny sliver of the broader Christian population. At their least toxic, they are just people who believe some core Judeo-Christian values should inform our laws and culture — not unlike our founders and most of our leaders prior to the mid-20th Century (whether explicitly stated or not, since explicitly stating the obvious rarely seemed necessary). Today, to explicitly connect a policy or value to Christianity puts one’s reputation as a serious person at risk, doesn’t it?
Alvin Plantinga famously defined "fundamentalist" as "stupid [S.O.B.] whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine."
One might similarly define a Christian Nationalist as "stupid [S.O.B.] whose opinions about the proper role of Christianity in public life are considerably to the right of mine."
There is no doubt a range of views on these matters, from left to right. Some, by definition, are on the extreme right. But use of the term merely indicates that the speaker is indicating views that he believes are unacceptably far to the right, without being precise about which views, exactly, render it so.
Yes, I have seen “news” articles literally comparing Christians just hanging around chatting at a MAGA rally to literal Nazi killers, because they are supposedly “Christian Nationalists.” Maybe it’s toned down now, but there was a time where the leftist rhetoric was just over the top.
I’d be very interested to know what people who say they are aware of Christian nationalism think is happening on that front compared to whatever’s really happening. In my experience, media tends to distort stories to make their “side” look better and the “other side” more scary. Curious if that’s happening here.
I've observed on many occasions that ideology always looks like common sense from the inside. The people least likely to say they've heard of Christian Nationalism, or to dismiss it as an invention of the left, are those who endorse its central propositions. Lots of examples in the comments here
What's most surprising and interesting here is how strong the "male" component is. I generally take scaremongering about CN to be female-coded, and to be tightly linked with the pro-choice movement. See also the talk of "theocracy" during the Clinton and GWB years, which is a word I can only recall women saying in this context (which included my college years), and functionally I think it was used to mean the exact same thing as when leftists now say "Christian Nationalism".
But then perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong -- is it right-leaning men vs. right-leaning women driving this effect? Especially among the old. E.g. if he were still alive, I strongly suspect my father would be aware of the term and would give me an earful about the propagandistic mendacity of it, but I doubt my mother has ever heard of it.
I was thinking maybe the non-religious group is impacting this but not sure how much it would affect the overall stats since they’re only 1/3 of the sample. No religion trends male and the no religion group is predictive of being more aware of CN than the general sample. Probably a few factors at play here that we aren’t even thinking about too.
This is exactly what one would expect for a "bogeyman". I'm not saying that Christian Nationalism doesn't EXIST - clearly, it does. Individuals HAVE written books about it - and not just against it, but also in favor of it. I'm just saying that this is really interesting, in that it does, at very least, IMPLY that CN is not quite the danger that some on the left make it out to be.
Clearly, many on the left have heard of it. Yet those on the right, who believers in the "monstrous" nature of the beast MOST SUSPECT of literally being a part of the phenomenon, are the people least likely to even have heard of it.
I see two reasons that that might be the case. First, it's altogether possible that among folks on the religious right, the principles that make up a leftist's vision of CN are just not as widespread and salient as those on the left, who fear and/or hate CN, think they are.
The second would be that the very principles of "CN" that many on the left fear/hate (take your pick) are seen on the religious right as not even "a thing" that needs a name (CN), but rather, as just how things are and/or should be, as in the hypothetical statement "I'm not yearning for something called Christian Nationalism, I just want things to be normal."
My gut says there may be a little more of the second, but I'd imagine there's a lot of the first mixed in.
Christian Evangelicals are a political movement unchristian in concept and practice. Nationalism is a utopian platform of both extremes with a strong rhetoric of division rather than any Nationalism achieved in unity. God-honoring Americans are a minority. God help US.
I guess I’m less concerned about Christian Nationalism these days because it’s proven itself bankrupt and waning, as Christendom itself collapses around us. My bigger concern is Nationalistic Christianity, or faith that is so intertwined with the values of our culture that it is just as likely to be a carrier of that culture as it is to bear any of the tradition of being Jesus’ family. When global Christianity resembles Western institutionalism with “Christian” rituals and liturgies attached, is it still Christianity or just another set of cultural practices exported out to the rest of the world?
Love the last sentence, perfect amount of humor to end the topic
You're not going to be able to engage with the topic. Nobody agrees about what education is, the topic and even age, which seems clearcut, doesn't really seem to say how age ever actually engages with it. Statistics sorta falsely creates these subcultures or at least traits and then expects us to dive into headcanon between these supposed things and how we assume they'd interact. The issue is it is entirely artificial. It just seemed, for quite awhile, the journalist realism or even political realism supervened on civic realism. After all, who else is most focused on it, but chasing these journalistic realities up to their end has shown these things do no resonate with people (and this is a time when people are turbo political and internet savvy and connected). I mean you don't need a consistent definition to whip people up into a fury. It just turns out everything that is being used is just headcanon Legos to substantiate whatever journalists and politicians are trying to push. Nobody is talking about this because there's nothing really there to talk about, good definition or the exact opposite.
A parcel of data that I'd like to see is the "effect" of CN. Yes, it's a thing, and those devoted to CN call it exactly that, so let's say that it exists, for the sake of argument.
What I'm particularly interested in is, among the "nones," how many of them are nones because they view all Christians as tainted by the CN stain. Publicly, CNs are very vocal and seem powerful, as alarmingly loud they are as elected (and appointed) officials in government. But I'd like to know how the CN ethos has impacted Christianity in general. Ryan? Any thoughts?
The obvious interpretation of the data seems to be that “Christian nationalism” is an exonym with negative affect.
"Local news" here in Quincy means AM stations like WTAD, owned by Sinclair. They feature Dan Bonjino and Mark Levin for hours every day. People leave these stations on in the background.
If I understood the data correctly at the links, this survey contacted over 4800 people? That seems huge for most polls I see these days. It reassures my understanding that CN is more of a media/political event than a serious threat to our nation. I do regret that the talking heads have attached the word "Christian" to such an ungodly movement.
The question can be rephrased a bit, I think, to who has heard of Manifest Destiny, which is the historical prototype. Then most people who have been to college would at least know something about it as concept of entitlement that European Christians claimed at the time, if not now.
It could also be rephrased as imposing majority culture. This existed in my lifetime. Being raised in a secular Jewish community, as the local Jewish population was becoming the town's majority of permanent residents, we certainly had vestiges of this. Elimination of formal prayer in the public schools came when I was in 4th grade. In first and second grade, after the Pledge, we had mandatory prayer for about a minute. While my best recollection of the language was that it was not overtly Christian, I remember quite well being instructed to put my palms together chest high and stare at my fingertips. That was not our prayer posture in Hebrew School. Stores stayed closed on Sundays every place I lived until 1979 when Boston experimented with Sunday openings during the holiday shopping season. It was so successful and with few enough complaints that it was made permanent. Liquor stores where I live now did not open on Sundays until this past decade. And the kosher butcher where I shopped on Sundays had to keep their sacramental wines locked in a closet and unavailable for purchase on Sundays. So while many of us may not capture the term, we have lived through how the dominant culture has infiltrated differing cultures in the past. We will recognize it again as the proposals to reintroduce some of this emerge.
Yes, I wish people would stop calling it "Christian Nationalism" and just call it "Nationalism" because the last thing it is - full of judgment, them vs. us, telling people what they can and can't do, power control, etc., and no focus on love, caring for those on the margins, servanthood, servant leadership even - well, it's just not at all Christlike.
Let's stop inserting "Christian" in the title. Please.
I think it’s important to refer to it as Christian Nationalism although I do see your point. Here is a piece that touches on Christian Nationalism vs Christianity that I think makes some really good points about the topic if you’re interested: https://open.substack.com/pub/kristindumez/p/is-white-christian-nationalism-imposter?r=2d2z4a&utm_medium=ios
“Thus, the current discussion about Christian Nationalism has been largely ignored (or rejected) by those on the right side of the political spectrum, while the Left has consumed anything that they can get their hands on when it comes to the dangers of Christian Nationalism.”
This tracks for me - as a leftist I absolutely have tried to learn more about Christian Nationalism and more generally the history of the evangelical movement in US politics. What’s interesting to me is that a lot of the things I have read and watched about Christian Nationalism are from Christians, not “nones”.