Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The actual Pew survey talks about a LOT more than the CT article engages on, and it's almost like they cherry picked the least unflattering topic to discuss. Basically 45% of evangelicals have heard about "Christian Nationalism" and 55% have not and therefore have no view on it.
If you're a white evangelical and someone comes calling wanting to know if you are in favor of Christians taking over the government, I would like to suggest that most people will not cop to that. It's too obviously nasty. Also if you ask them of their view of "Christian Nationalism" they may be in favor of it under another name or no name at all -- probably something like "make this a Christian nation again", rhetoric based on a false premise that you hear all the time. So I am not comforted by most evangelicals claiming they are "unfamiliar with the term".
Also, the term "evangelicals" includes somewhat less illiberal thinkers who are not fundamentalists, so this data would be skewed away from the true fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. And it is the hardcore fundamentalists who are of a prominently authoritarian bent.
If we assume for the sake of argument that the 45% of evangelicals who have heard about Christian Nationalism is correct, then only 5% of THOSE having (or at least admitting to) a favorable view of it doesn't seem surprising. But I'm guessing a lot of people leaning toward theocracy are hiding in that other 55%. And even a substantial minority having authoritarian leanings will have an outsize influence in the US. There is just too much vitriol in national discourse "justified" by claiming god's approval, for me to think otherwise.
I'm interested in other's thoughts, but remember this can't be a political discussion. We need to confine ourselves to discussion of whether evangelicals, on balance, merely want an equal voice in the public square, or want more control of beliefs / behaviors outside their in-group, whether via politics or other means. Let us not get into specifics of what they want or how that fits with what party, etc. Just the principle of extending influence or control outside the in-group.
I see this as a serious and dangerous problem, based on what I observe and how it compares to what I was seeing from the inside back in the day (pre-1995 or so).
The actual Pew survey talks about a LOT more than the CT article engages on, and it's almost like they cherry picked the least unflattering topic to discuss. Basically 45% of evangelicals have heard about "Christian Nationalism" and 55% have not and therefore have no view on it.
If you're a white evangelical and someone comes calling wanting to know if you are in favor of Christians taking over the government, I would like to suggest that most people will not cop to that. It's too obviously nasty. Also if you ask them of their view of "Christian Nationalism" they may be in favor of it under another name or no name at all -- probably something like "make this a Christian nation again", rhetoric based on a false premise that you hear all the time. So I am not comforted by most evangelicals claiming they are "unfamiliar with the term".
Also, the term "evangelicals" includes somewhat less illiberal thinkers who are not fundamentalists, so this data would be skewed away from the true fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. And it is the hardcore fundamentalists who are of a prominently authoritarian bent.
If we assume for the sake of argument that the 45% of evangelicals who have heard about Christian Nationalism is correct, then only 5% of THOSE having (or at least admitting to) a favorable view of it doesn't seem surprising. But I'm guessing a lot of people leaning toward theocracy are hiding in that other 55%. And even a substantial minority having authoritarian leanings will have an outsize influence in the US. There is just too much vitriol in national discourse "justified" by claiming god's approval, for me to think otherwise.
I'm interested in other's thoughts, but remember this can't be a political discussion. We need to confine ourselves to discussion of whether evangelicals, on balance, merely want an equal voice in the public square, or want more control of beliefs / behaviors outside their in-group, whether via politics or other means. Let us not get into specifics of what they want or how that fits with what party, etc. Just the principle of extending influence or control outside the in-group.
I see this as a serious and dangerous problem, based on what I observe and how it compares to what I was seeing from the inside back in the day (pre-1995 or so).
I agree with the bold. ANY attempt to control others by civil and criminal law for reasons OTHER THAN SECULAR is a serious and dangerous problem, IMO. Religion is about voluntary SELF-DISCIPLINE not enforcement.
I agree with the bold. ANY attempt to control others by civil and criminal law for reasons OTHER THAN SECULAR is a serious and dangerous problem, IMO. Religion is about voluntary SELF-DISCIPLINE not enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
Seems like "influence" is actually on a continuum...
From mild "influence" to "heavy" influence to "total" influence.
The continuum is breached when it is instituted into civil or criminal law, Then it is CONTROL!
My former sect paid lip service to church/state separation, but Christian Nationalist ideas were fairly common. This was the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod back in the 1980s.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were more openly theocratic now, given current trends. There was frequent talk of “waiting for the man and the moment.”
To me, there is a big difference between a Christian politician who considers their faith when making decisions, but ultimately operates within a secular framework, and a Christian nationalist who wants to dismantle the current secular framework, and replace it with one founded in religious belief.
To me, there is a big difference between a Christian politician who considers their faith when making decisions, but ultimately operates within a secular framework, and a Christian nationalist who wants to dismantle the current secular framework, and replace it with one founded in religious belief.
I agree with the bold. ANY attempt to control others by civil and criminal law for reasons OTHER THAN SECULAR is a serious and dangerous problem, IMO. Religion is about voluntary SELF-DISCIPLINE not enforcement.
I think that it is no coincidence that all of this started with the schools, books and the libraries. Ban books you don't want children to read. Ban what can be taught in classrooms. Make talking about gays or trans topics illegal in public schools and label anyone supporting as a groomer. Run those drag queen story readers out of town. Make books that show white people in a less than favorable light regarding slavery or race issues illegal, and ban critical race theory even though its not even widely taught. And the only real way to make sure these kind of things are gone and never return is to bring religion and prayer back into public schools. And the way to do that is elect politicians who will pass laws that allow it and as those push back against such new laws fight these laws, have the SCOTUS rule in your favor and turn back the clock on the definition of the establishment clause. And the reason it started with children it is easy to get people behind something that claims to protect children. And if you are against the above you must be a groomer, a communist or perhaps even an atheist. You are certainly not a good christian.
And even if its the more extreme right wing pushing all of this and wanting to establish America once and for all as a christian nation. White evangelicals will go along with it. Certainly they are not going to push back against it. Even if many do not understand the nuances of christian nationalism or white nationalism in some poll. Deep down they all on the same side.
And the way they are going to enact all of the above on a national level is with Project 2025.
I agree with the bold. ANY attempt to control others by civil and criminal law for reasons OTHER THAN SECULAR is a serious and dangerous problem, IMO. Religion is about voluntary SELF-DISCIPLINE not enforcement.
You and I agree on more than we disagree on.
I of course get that Believers think that everything should be run according to religious preferences. It is up to people to support secular authorities ion keeping religion where it belongs - in the temples and the home, if the people are religious, then family indoctrination is a problem, but the state gives parents authority to bring up the kids, and even the schools ideally keep religion out of education, though religion would love to get control of education, too.
It is a battle for minds and hearts (convince the mind and heart will go with it) because Might is not always right, but being right does no good if they have no might.
Politics aside, we are in a very sticky position right now. It will be decided this year.
And even if its the more extreme right wing pushing all of this and wanting to establish America once and for all as a christian nation. White evangelicals will go along with it. Certainly they are not going to push back against it. Even if many do not understand the nuances of christian nationalism or white nationalism in some poll. Deep down they all on the same side.
I think this is key. I remember when I was in a relatively mild-ish branch of fundamentalism, I wasn't comfortable with the pentecostals, charismatics, or the (more overtly) racist southern denominations, but I was happy to let them push fundamentalist-friendly initiatives in the public sphere just the same. Do our dirty work for us, so to speak. Our real malfunction with that sort of thing wasn't so much ideology as cultural taboos. We were more about maintaining decorum / dignity / respect / status. We didn't even like political involvement as it was inherently yucky. In the ensuing decades however, that particular Overton window moved enough that now it's almost fashionable to engage in politics, conspiracy theories, etc.
I was with my two surviving brothers in recent days due to a death in the extended family and they completely believed the current scare-mongering about how illegals can take over your home while you're on vacation and you can't get them out when you come home. A notion pushed by a single provocateur immigrant blogger hungry for eyeballs and supported by absolutely no data whatsoever. This kind of nuttery would have been inconceivable even twenty years ago, but is commonplace now. It just takes enough of the herd doing it to provide you with cover, I guess.
I also noted that the less religious of the two brothers was astounded at the changes in society, how the world seemed to be really going down the tubes in a way that exceeds the normal "it's not like it was when I was a kid" sense. I think a lot of this is lubricated by a growing unease with the state of the world, a growing distrust of the viability of society, and ultimately a loss of hope. It makes it easier to retreat into fantasies, to listen to anyone claiming to have any kind of answer, however fanciful. This is true of anyone, in or out of theism; but theism throws gasoline on the fire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
