Onward Christian Nationalists!
Terry H. Schwadron
July 28, 2022
Over the weekend, it was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the congresswoman whose off-the-cuff remarks often land her in the She-Said-What? listings, who was publicly beating her partisan drum for “Christian nationalism” as a favored path to American success.
She appeared at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit Florida, and among other topics, she defended her Christian nationalist label, urged the young conservatives in attendance to more prominently mix Christianity with politics.
“If we do not lead that way, then we will not be able to fix” American government, she argued. “I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly — we should be Christian nationalists,” she repeated in radio interviews that followed.
This is not the Christian message of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, or Rev. William Barber, it is not the social justice message we hear from Pope Francis. It’s not the patriotic American exceptionalism argument of Ronald Reagan.
It’s a message we’re hearing more often, generally from Republicans, and generally from people who have a laundry list of right-leaning public policy goals in mind.
Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania and 2020 election denier, told a group called Patriots Arise that separation of church and state was a “myth. In November we are going to take our state back, my God will make it so.”
The calls from Tucker Carlson and friends to defend against a “Great Replacement Theory,” in which Democrats and “elites” are maneuvering to bring down white Christians from jobs, homes and governmental control are right out of the same hymnal.
The religious right has long supported conservative causes, but traditionally has been viewed as coming from the political fringe. The current wave actively seeks a nation that actively prioritizes a particular set of Christian beliefs and far-right views and that more openly embraces Christianity as a bedrock identity,reported The New York Times in a recent look at the movement.
Less Tolerance, More Insistence
The issue at hand is that our times are allowing less tolerance for nuance, and more insistence on clearly defined political lines. Even if a minority viewpoint, Christian nationalists are acting as if they are the single moral voice that decides.
And even if that voice proves super-influential in determining cultural views, what’s the possible justification for right-wing policies about election fraud, for example, or immigration rules, policing, energy policies or dealing with climate issues.
While many may have dismissed the historic American principle of the separation of church and state, we’re seeing a resurgence of policy decisions, starting with abortion, but extending well beyond, that match with a particular set of religious views as being the mandate for the nation.
As the report in The Times noted, the argument for a foundational role for practical. application of religion in government policy coincides with a blending of Christian faith with election fraud conspiracy theories, QAnon ideology, gun rights and lingering anger over covid-related restrictions. In at least three states, Illinois, Alabama and Oregon, school personnel have said they are reviewing their policies on employee prayer in school.
And among lawmakers, the outcome of such theoretical framework is resulting in unwanted mandates for all.
Let’s be obvious for a moment: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans, agnostics and atheists all can express spiritual interests that call upon humans to live to humane standards without having to be Christian, white or even demonstrably nationalist. Claiming an evangelical allegiance has often omitted Catholics and certain Protestant denominations. There is more than one Bible. Just as clearly, Americans come in a variety of racial and ethnic mixes and with a variety of identification. And they all vote, and, more importantly, constitutionally expect to be served equally under the same laws.
Rather than a polytheistic society in which a variety of lifestyle choices are tolerated, the outcome in a growing number of Republican-controlled legislatures is a series of Thou-Shalt-Not rules about sex, books, health choices, how we run our schools, what we teach and freedom to protest.
Somewhere in the nurturing of keeping a secularized government with room for lots of private, parochial choice, we’ve been losing both tolerance for The Other and the idea that public welfare is supposed to be free of specific religious ideology.
The Signs Abound
Our Supreme Court’s new majority, which is right-leaning, and which favors freedom of religion over other rights, thus has been a leading light towards a society in which individuals can ignore public health mandates but not have the ability to decide on abortion, a principle we’re seeing extending into sexual orientation, contraception, school library shelves and which bathroom to use.
Republican governors clocking the rise of Christian nationalism are aligning policies around culture war issues that go to the heart of the movement. The next presidential election will be about cultural and economic isolation, about American superiority, about who has God on his/her side.
What exactly is considered right about Christian nationalism and considered wrong about a caliphate in which Muslim law dictates justice? How do Christian nationalists see those of us who are excluded passively accepting such a society?
Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos never quite connected the dots when she talked about her association with groups that wanted to bring the kingdom of God to earth by canceling student debt help. It was clearer when she supported taking money from public schools to give funds to parochial schools.
A CNN report described some participants at the Jan. 6 Capitol riots who viewed themselves at the ramparts as warriors in a Christian revolt — though seemingly stolen elections had little to do with religious overtones. The point of the article was that a burgeoning movement is using Christian identification to cloak a variety of distinctly non-religious, exclusive social policy concerns.
Tracing a religious justification for views that are identifiably hostile to minorities, gays, non-White immigrants is difficult, outside of the thinking that the time is nigh to circle the wagons to protect a White, Christian, soon-to-be-demographic minority.
It’s a dangerous movement about preserving the rights of only some Americans as the whole of our country.
##