Much of that iceberg @Kendel 's talking about is white supremacism. ....
Analyses from the Pew Research Center also show growing distrust in the U.S. of the term 'Christian nationalism' as racist and anti-democratic.
Yep.
And that distrust is often interpreted as growing persecution and evidence of an "anti-christian" culture. But the societal identification, problematization and reduction of a special right or immunity granted as an unmerited, peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor to a class of people is not equivalent to persecution. It is something like the development of equity. Which many naively think we have here already.
As I think @Gramps49 - probably others as well - has mentioned, fear is a huge driver for CN here.
In fact, religious commitment—as measured by church attendance, prayer, and Scripture reading—tends to improve attitudes on race, serving as a progressive influence.
@Martin54, Would it were the case! According to the PRRI study I mentioned earlier in this thread
Religious Practice and Salience
Americans who lean toward supporting Christian nationalism are not, as some have theorized, Christian in name only. They are significantly more likely than other Americans to be connected to churches and to say religion is important in their lives.
Christian nationalism adherents are nearly twice as likely as Americans overall to report attending religious services at least a few times a month (54% vs. 28%). As support for Christian nationalism goes down, so do reported church attendance rates: 42% of Christian nationalism sympathizers report attending church at least a few times a month, compared with 27% of skeptics, and only 10% of rejecters.
Similarly, 44% of Christian nationalism adherents report that religion is the most important thing in their lives, compared to 24% of sympathizers, 10% of skeptics, and 3% of rejecters.
While this quote doesn't discuss what portion of practicing Christians here are CNs, typical Christian practices don't seem to immunize against CN.
How do you stop Christian Nationalists getting on local boards? You run against them if you can or you support people who are able to.....
Thanks, @Gramps49. That's a good example. It's actually why I applied for an open position on our library board. I'm learning a lot about millages this week and library establishment laws in Michigan. : )
1 1/2 millage webinars to cram in today. Need to check on some tax issues with my library director. Three minutes of Library-promoting comments to write for tonight's and tomorrow night's township board meetings.
There's work to do.
Maybe Fannie Lou Hamer said it best and most succinctly:
You can pray until you faint, but if you don't get up and try to do something, God is not going to put it in your lap.
I'd like to see the researchers parse out "church attendance" and "prayer, Bible reading" separately. I suspect the one comes down to mainly "hanging out with like-minded people" which is easily corrupted, while the spiritual disciplines are indeed more likely to lead to less racism.
...
Looking online for alternative approaches, you could also consider the more prosaic analysis (especially among Christian groups opposed to it, it seems to me) that Christian Nationalism is based in fear and anxiety. (Or more particularly, from my perspective, the exploitation of people's fear and anxiety for political and personal gain.)
So, rather than trying to oppose the carefully conceived campaigns of those in control of the "movement" head on, or trying to convince those caught up in it that they're simply wrong, there might be some mileage in considering how to assuage their fear and anxiety.
Like what? The conservative masses cannot have their fear and anxiety assuaged by the opposition.
I admire your cynicism, but I seem to remember that some faiths believe in loving their enemies.
In outline, developing an approach based on this would involve: understanding why people fear - what the drivers are; what people fear - in the case of people drawn to Christian Nationalism; and how to reassure them. It strikes me that there should be room for non-confrontational approaches alongside more direct challenges.
Christian nationalism adherents are nearly twice as likely as Americans overall to report attending religious services at least a few times a month (54% vs. 28%). As support for Christian nationalism goes down, so do reported church attendance rates: 42% of Christian nationalism sympathizers report attending church at least a few times a month, compared with 27% of skeptics, and only 10% of rejecters.
Similarly, 44% of Christian nationalism adherents report that religion is the most important thing in their lives, compared to 24% of sympathizers, 10% of skeptics, and 3% of rejecters.
While this quote doesn't discuss what portion of practicing Christians here are CNs, typical Christian practices don't seem to immunize against CN.
The statistics you quote seem to me compatible with confounding variables. Since non-religious Americans and religious Americans who aren't Christians are very unlikely to either attend church or be Christian nationalists you would expect Christian nationalists to be more likely than the average American to attend church. The question is whether Christian nationalists are more likely to attend church than other people who self-identify as members of the same racial/religious group.
I'd like to see the researchers parse out "church attendance" and "prayer, Bible reading" separately. I suspect the one comes down to mainly "hanging out with like-minded people" which is easily corrupted, while the spiritual disciplines are indeed more likely to lead to less racism.
I can dig around to see if I can find any stats. I'm curious, too. But my experience has been that christian practice largely molds itself to the surrounding cultural assumpti
...
Looking online for alternative approaches, you could also consider the more prosaic analysis (especially among Christian groups opposed to it, it seems to me) that Christian Nationalism is based in fear and anxiety. (Or more particularly, from my perspective, the exploitation of people's fear and anxiety for political and personal gain.)
So, rather than trying to oppose the carefully conceived campaigns of those in control of the "movement" head on, or trying to convince those caught up in it that they're simply wrong, there might be some mileage in considering how to assuage their fear and anxiety.
Like what? The conservative masses cannot have their fear and anxiety assuaged by the opposition.
I admire your cynicism, but I seem to remember that some faiths believe in loving their enemies.
In outline, developing an approach based on this would involve: understanding why people fear - what the drivers are; what people fear - in the case of people drawn to Christian Nationalism; and how to reassure them. It strikes me that there should be room for non-confrontational approaches alongside more direct challenges.
It's not cynicism.
It is well known why these people fear.
It is well known what "christian" nationalists fear.
They will not be reasurred. Not as a group. Because "christian" nationalism is about power.
@Lamb Chopped actually has suggested the plan that would possibly incude reassurance, because trust-building is foundational to it. Their plan has been rejected by a few as containing a "hidden agenda," unfortunately.
??? I'm sorry, did you say my plan (confused by the "their", I think it meant me) has been rejected as containing a hidden agenda? Because if so, I missed that somehow. And I'd like to know what kind of hidden agenda anybody thinks there is in it.
I'd like to see the researchers parse out "church attendance" and "prayer, Bible reading" separately. I suspect the one comes down to mainly "hanging out with like-minded people" which is easily corrupted, while the spiritual disciplines are indeed more likely to lead to less racism.
One would hope so.
Trouble is, no practice of 'the spiritual disciplines' are value-free.
If we practice them in a liberal context they are likely to affirm and confirm us in our liberalism.
If we practice them in a more conservative setting they will confirm and affirm us in that too.
That's not to say that we won't find our assumptions or predisposition challenged somewhere along the line.
Very few of us get to challenge the 'zeitgeist' or prevailing attitudes in whatever setting we find ourselves in.
@Kendel I want to affirm your willingness to run for our local Library Board. I think the Library Board has the greatest impact on the community, more so than the city council or the School Board. I bet there is a lot to learn. More power to you.
I'd like to see the researchers parse out "church attendance" and "prayer, Bible reading" separately. I suspect the one comes down to mainly "hanging out with like-minded people" which is easily corrupted, while the spiritual disciplines are indeed more likely to lead to less racism.
One would hope so.
Trouble is, no practice of 'the spiritual disciplines' are value-free.
If we practice them in a liberal context they are likely to affirm and confirm us in our liberalism.
If we practice them in a more conservative setting they will confirm and affirm us in that too.
Being conservative does not equal being racist. In spite of Trump & Co's attempt to make it so.
I'd like to see the researchers parse out "church attendance" and "prayer, Bible reading" separately. I suspect the one comes down to mainly "hanging out with like-minded people" which is easily corrupted, while the spiritual disciplines are indeed more likely to lead to less racism.
One would hope so.
Trouble is, no practice of 'the spiritual disciplines' are value-free.
If we practice them in a liberal context they are likely to affirm and confirm us in our liberalism.
If we practice them in a more conservative setting they will confirm and affirm us in that too.
Being conservative does not equal being racist. In spite of Trump & Co's attempt to make it so.
Conservatism is in a short causal chain to racism. And there are many conservatives I like. Especially American ones. Lincoln above all. Jimmy Stewart and everyone involved in It's A Wonderful Life. Clint. Ron Christie. But sometimes there's no extra link at all.
I'd like to see the researchers parse out "church attendance" and "prayer, Bible reading" separately. I suspect the one comes down to mainly "hanging out with like-minded people" which is easily corrupted, while the spiritual disciplines are indeed more likely to lead to less racism.
One would hope so.
Trouble is, no practice of 'the spiritual disciplines' are value-free.
If we practice them in a liberal context they are likely to affirm and confirm us in our liberalism.
If we practice them in a more conservative setting they will confirm and affirm us in that too.
Being conservative does not equal being racist. In spite of Trump & Co's attempt to make it so.
I didn't say it was. I was simply saying that the practice of spiritual disciplines in and of themselves are no guarantee that we are going to transcend whatever ideology or worldview we imbibe or inhabit.
I'm sure we could find instances of people whose spiritual disciplines we may find exemplary but whose views - whether liberal or conservative - jar very much with wherever we ourselves happen to be on that spectrum.
I would suggest though, that forms of populist 'social conservatism' do have a tendency to slide very quickly into racism.
Trump and demagogues like him don't operate in a vacuum. He didn't invent this stuff. He taps into fears and attitudes that are already there and manipulates them for his own ends.
@Kendel I want to affirm your willingness to run for our local Library Board. I think the Library Board has the greatest impact on the community, more so than the city council or the School Board. I bet there is a lot to learn. More power to you.
Thanks @Gramps49. It's been a good experience so far.
Conservatism is in a short causal chain to racism. And there are many conservatives I like. Especially American ones. Lincoln above all. Jimmy Stewart and everyone involved in It's A Wonderful Life. Clint. Ron Christie. But sometimes there's no extra link at all.
At least in the US this is not really the case. Black Americans have been pointing out the racism of liberal whites for a long time, and they are right. It is more subtle, at least to the whites who exercise it. But the underlying sense of superiority shows itself, for example, in the way that liberal whites tend to use their own power and voice to support minority races, rather than give over that power and voice.
This is what I was talking about in the thread about churches and disability. Who is in charge? Who makes top level decisions all the time? What does the power structure look like? Who decides what qualifications make a person able to lead, before they are given a chance? On whose basis are those qualifications established? On whose basis are those qualifications enforced?
The recent book "Caste" is painfully helpful in this area. There are many, many others.
@Kendel. I fully acknowledge that it isn't just conservatives. It's all of us privileged white folk. Here just as much. And it blurs here too, we have many middle-class, therefore conservative non-Caucasians. My amazing city in particular. And like them, I am a de facto racist as I own property.
@Kendel. I fully acknowledge that it isn't just conservatives. It's all of us privileged white folk. Here just as much. And it blurs here too, we have many middle-class, therefore conservative non-Caucasians. My amazing city in particular. And like them, I am a de facto racist as I own property.
Even Dune has a white saviour!
I don't know why "even" Dune - the whole setup is explicitly white saviour, the back story has the foundations for a "white saviour" being purposely laid many generations in advance. The story is consciously written to be critical of "white saviours". There's more than a whiff of TE Lawrence about Paul Atreides.
There's plenty to talk about with how Herbert makes his Fremen the cultural descendants of Muslims, as though that will automatically make them "other" to his audience. Worldbuilding can be an interesting challenge in SF.
...
Looking online for alternative approaches, you could also consider the more prosaic analysis (especially among Christian groups opposed to it, it seems to me) that Christian Nationalism is based in fear and anxiety. (Or more particularly, from my perspective, the exploitation of people's fear and anxiety for political and personal gain.)
So, rather than trying to oppose the carefully conceived campaigns of those in control of the "movement" head on, or trying to convince those caught up in it that they're simply wrong, there might be some mileage in considering how to assuage their fear and anxiety.
Like what? The conservative masses cannot have their fear and anxiety assuaged by the opposition.
I admire your cynicism, but I seem to remember that some faiths believe in loving their enemies.
In outline, developing an approach based on this would involve: understanding why people fear - what the drivers are; what people fear - in the case of people drawn to Christian Nationalism; and how to reassure them. It strikes me that there should be room for non-confrontational approaches alongside more direct challenges.
It's not cynicism.
It is well known why these people fear.
It is well known what "christian" nationalists fear.
They will not be reasurred. Not as a group. Because "christian" nationalism is about power.
I was talking about reassuring adherents as individuals, not as a group.
@Lamb Chopped actually has suggested the plan that would possibly incude reassurance, because trust-building is foundational to it. Their plan has been rejected by a few as containing a "hidden agenda," unfortunately.
That's an interesting take on my response to Lamb Chopped, but what I was doing was pointing out the problem of a purely "human level" approach, which is why Lamb Chopped's reply describing an approach based on (essentially Christian) self-denial and love makes all the difference.
For some (the people running the show), Christian Nationalism seems primarily to be about power, but for others, the *appeal* of Christian Nationalism is that, having encouraged people to project their fears, it promotes power as the answer to those fears.
I think responses need to address both - confronting those seeking to acquire power, but also reassuring those who are putting their hope in it to relieve their fears.
Ultimately, I don't think there's a lot of difference between Lamb Chopped's suggestion and mine - it's more a difference of emphasis or focus - on addressing the underlying fear rather than modelling desired behaviour. Although there's no reason why you can't do both.
The Idaho state legislature is working on a bill to require all public libraries to have a complaint form for any parent to fill out if they find something in the collection that is objectionable. And if the library refuses to pull the material in question, it will give the parent the right to sue the library system.
What's wrong with this idea?
Onc, it does not identify what would be considered objectionable.
Two, it is giving one person the power to determine what all the students and children can have access to.
Three, it does not allow the appropriate board to provide a reasonable defense for keeping the material in the collection.
The Idaho state legislature is working on a bill to require all public libraries to have a complaint form for any parent to fill out if they find something in the collection that is objectionable. And if the library refuses to pull the material in question, it will give the parent the right to sue the library system.
The Idaho state legislature is working on a bill to require all public libraries to have a complaint form for any parent to fill out if they find something in the collection that is objectionable. And if the library refuses to pull the material in question, it will give the parent the right to sue the library system.
The Idaho state legislature is working on a bill to require all public libraries to have a complaint form for any parent to fill out if they find something in the collection that is objectionable. And if the library refuses to pull the material in question, it will give the parent the right to sue the library system.
The document says the organization’s founders are “un-hyphenated Americans, and we believe in a particular Christianity that is not blurred by modernist philosophies.”
It says: “We are willing to act decisively to secure permanently, as much as anything is permanent, the political and social dominance” of their beliefs.
In terms of recruiting, the document says: “Most of all, we seek those who understand the nature of authority and its legitimate forceful exercise in the temporal realm.”
Neither the Claremont Institute nor SACR have any official standing, but Claremont is quite influential in Republican circles, and it was a Claremont fellow, Glenn Elmers, who wrote a couple of years ago that "Most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term," with the clear implication that to be an American is to be a Christian nationalist.
Possibly dumb question from this side of the pond. What does "un-hyphenated Americans" mean?
I have third cousins in America, whose family emigrated in 1908, but who still identify as Scottish-American.
Is there any American Christian Nationalist push back against Tartan Day, or against Irish -Americans celebrating St Patrick's Day?
I'm reasonably certain it's just a euphemism for white.
Although you have to factor in the way whiteness is a floating signifier (instructive that the hyphenated communities with the biggest cultural distinctiveness have historically been the ones that existed at or beyond the boundaries of whiteness)
Am I right in thinking that some of those who would identify as 'unhypenated Americans' (see what I did there? I didn't use a hyphen) would be among the first to press to secede from the Union?
If so, it rather begs the question as to what they mean by 'American' un-hypenated or hyphenated. I thought the definition of an American was someone who was a citizen of the United States of America.
I think @Arethosemyfeet is right, it is a euphemism for 'white', although I suspect it may in some instances exclude Italians, Hispanics and other people of non-Anglo Saxon or 'Celtic' or other northern European origin. Which I imagine is what @Chrisstiles is alluding to.
@Leorning Cniht. 'Even Dune', because I'm utterly uncritical of it, including all the movie versions (missed the TV series, must get the DVDs), despite critiquing the movies naturally. And yes, the worms would need nuclear power, and why, eight thousand years from now, would aircraft cockpits have buttons ('24) or even manual microphones ('84). And there will be no Caucasians by then.
Possibly dumb question from this side of the pond. What does "un-hyphenated Americans" mean?
@North East Quine It's a good question. I've never heard the term before. I'm thinking "unqualified" "unadulterated" "without divided identity" americans. Ie, "like us."
@Martin54 Dune is a good example of what I have in mind for more than just Paul the white messiah. The next generation of leaders is still tempered by non Fremen blood and sensibilities, power structures, Culture.
So, by "conservative" do you mean conserving the status quo structures of power (which includes economy)?
Not the window dressing of "conservative issues" or "conservative values"?
Possibly dumb question from this side of the pond. What does "un-hyphenated Americans" mean?
@North East Quine It's a good question. I've never heard the term before. I'm thinking "unqualified" "unadulterated" "without divided identity" americans. Ie, "like us."
@Martin54 Dune is a good example of what I have in mind for more than just Paul the white messiah. The next generation of leaders is still tempered by non Fremen blood and sensibilities, power structures, Culture.
So, by "conservative" do you mean conserving the status quo structures of power (which includes economy)?
Not the window dressing of "conservative issues" or "conservative values"?
Yep. Inequality of outcome. Private opulence for the few and public poverty for the many.
For some (the people running the show), Christian Nationalism seems primarily to be about power, but for others, the *appeal* of Christian Nationalism is that, having encouraged people to project their fears, it promotes power as the answer to those fears.
@pease , nobody is running the show. It runs itself, a perpetual motion machine that receives an occassional energy boost and then runs faster for a while. Some boosts in the US I can think of before the election of the 45th president - in random order:
9/11
The Tea Party
WWII
Skopes Trial
Obama's election
Roe v Wade
Reagan
Overthrow of the Shah of Iran
Conflict over Viet Nam War
Nobody's "in charge" of how people understand these things.
The bill that requires libraries to remove a book or other material if someone fills our form objecting to a book/material passed the Idaho House 47-23, Remember, it is a small state.
Under the bill, public libraries and private and public school libraries couldn’t make available to minors under 18 any material that depicts “nudity, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse that is harmful to minors” or “any other material harmful to minors.” The definition for “harmful to minors” includes depictions of sexual content or nudity when it “appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and includes depictions that are “patently offensive to prevailing standards.”
Using that definition, I think I could easily send an objection to the Bible, since I can find stories about nudity, homosexuality, even sado-masochistic abuse. There is also violence, genocide, infanticide etc.
Hopefully, the state Senate will not pass it, or the governor veto it, or it gets ruled unconstitutional in the courts.
Thanks, for the update, @Gramps49. And the commentary, @Timothy the Obscure. I wouldn’t make any bets either, though I have no firsthand experience with Idaho.
The bill that requires libraries to remove a book or other material if someone fills our form objecting to a book/material passed the Idaho House 47-23, Remember, it is a small state.
Under the bill, public libraries and private and public school libraries couldn’t make available to minors under 18 any material that depicts “nudity, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse that is harmful to minors” or “any other material harmful to minors.” The definition for “harmful to minors” includes depictions of sexual content or nudity when it “appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and includes depictions that are “patently offensive to prevailing standards.”
Using that definition, I think I could easily send an objection to the Bible, since I can find stories about nudity, homosexuality, even sado-masochistic abuse. There is also violence, genocide, infanticide etc.
Hopefully, the state Senate will not pass it, or the governor veto it, or it gets ruled unconstitutional in the courts.
I just looked it up. The number is HOUSE BILL 710 of 2024. The 47-23 should actually be: PASSED 47-23-0.
Possibly dumb question from this side of the pond. What does "un-hyphenated Americans" mean?
@North East Quine It's a good question. I've never heard the term before. I'm thinking "unqualified" "unadulterated" "without divided identity" americans. Ie, "like us."
Yep. Inequality of outcome. Private opulence for the few and public poverty for the many.
In the cases above, opulence takes the form of access to information. If you have the money to buy it yourself, all is well. If you don't, well, too bad.
If it passes the state Senate and the gov signs it, it is state law but can be challenged federally. But state legislatures know that the U.S. Supreme Court isn't going to fill up its docket with all these individual state laws.
True, but federal district courts and courts of appeals don’t have a choice about taking challenges, and they are quite capable of striking down state laws. They do have ways of making challenges go away, of course, but they can’t just say “we’re not taking it” like SCOTUS can.
The law could, of course, also be challenged in state court. Whether any hope lies there, I cannot say.
Is it any less strange to believe that the British monarch is chosen by God?
I don't think it's intrinsic to being a monarchist to believe the monarch has been chosen by God per se. There are extreme versions of monarchism that think that, but not intrinsic to it any more than preferring any other form of government.
The "seven mountains" thinking is also known as Dominionism. And while it's fringe theologically, it's very much embedded in the right wing in the US.
I've been hearing a lot about it and its toxic history from the excellent podcast by Phil Vischer (of Veggietales fame) and Skye Jethani, The Holy Post. Phil was also interviewed for Rob Reiner's documentary about Christian Nationalism, God and Country. The history of this goes back further than I had any idea, and it's ghastly.
Is it any less strange to believe that the British monarch is chosen by God?
I don't think it's intrinsic to being a monarchist to believe the monarch has been chosen by God per se. There are extreme versions of monarchism that think that, but not intrinsic to it any more than preferring any other form of government.
It's the default position in regard to the British monarchy, per the coronation service.
It's the default position in regard to the British monarchy, per the coronation service.
But not intrinsic to being OK with/liking monarchy in and of itself, whether British or otherwise. One might as well say that being OK with/liking democracy requires one to believe that whomever is elected has been chosen by God. And there might be "chosen by God" as part of general Providence and "what happens in the universe" as opposed to "chosen by God specifically and to whom absolute, no-limits obedience is required, no matter what" as a concept as well.
It's the default position in regard to the British monarchy, per the coronation service.
But not intrinsic to being OK with/liking monarchy in and of itself, whether British or otherwise. One might as well say that being OK with/liking democracy requires one to believe that whomever is elected has been chosen by God. And there might be "chosen by God" as part of general Providence and "what happens in the universe" as opposed to "chosen by God specifically and to whom absolute, no-limits obedience is required, no matter what" as a concept as well.
I did wonder about the latter distinction, yes, but I don't think the former holds because historically democratically elected governments don't claim that as a general rule (some might say their candidate is backed by God, but not that the victor, whoever it is, is divinely appointed).
Comments
And that distrust is often interpreted as growing persecution and evidence of an "anti-christian" culture. But the societal identification, problematization and reduction of a special right or immunity granted as an unmerited, peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor to a class of people is not equivalent to persecution. It is something like the development of equity. Which many naively think we have here already.
As I think @Gramps49 - probably others as well - has mentioned, fear is a huge driver for CN here.
@Martin54, Would it were the case! According to the PRRI study I mentioned earlier in this thread
While this quote doesn't discuss what portion of practicing Christians here are CNs, typical Christian practices don't seem to immunize against CN.
Thanks, @Gramps49. That's a good example. It's actually why I applied for an open position on our library board. I'm learning a lot about millages this week and library establishment laws in Michigan. : )
1 1/2 millage webinars to cram in today. Need to check on some tax issues with my library director. Three minutes of Library-promoting comments to write for tonight's and tomorrow night's township board meetings.
There's work to do.
Maybe Fannie Lou Hamer said it best and most succinctly:
In outline, developing an approach based on this would involve: understanding why people fear - what the drivers are; what people fear - in the case of people drawn to Christian Nationalism; and how to reassure them. It strikes me that there should be room for non-confrontational approaches alongside more direct challenges.
I can dig around to see if I can find any stats. I'm curious, too. But my experience has been that christian practice largely molds itself to the surrounding cultural assumpti
It's not cynicism.
It is well known why these people fear.
It is well known what "christian" nationalists fear.
They will not be reasurred. Not as a group. Because "christian" nationalism is about power.
@Lamb Chopped actually has suggested the plan that would possibly incude reassurance, because trust-building is foundational to it. Their plan has been rejected by a few as containing a "hidden agenda," unfortunately.
Some shipmates seem to find your suggestion containing a hidden agenda. I am not among them, however.
One would hope so.
Trouble is, no practice of 'the spiritual disciplines' are value-free.
If we practice them in a liberal context they are likely to affirm and confirm us in our liberalism.
If we practice them in a more conservative setting they will confirm and affirm us in that too.
That's not to say that we won't find our assumptions or predisposition challenged somewhere along the line.
Very few of us get to challenge the 'zeitgeist' or prevailing attitudes in whatever setting we find ourselves in.
But we have to start somewhere.
Being conservative does not equal being racist. In spite of Trump & Co's attempt to make it so.
Conservatism is in a short causal chain to racism. And there are many conservatives I like. Especially American ones. Lincoln above all. Jimmy Stewart and everyone involved in It's A Wonderful Life. Clint. Ron Christie. But sometimes there's no extra link at all.
I didn't say it was. I was simply saying that the practice of spiritual disciplines in and of themselves are no guarantee that we are going to transcend whatever ideology or worldview we imbibe or inhabit.
I'm sure we could find instances of people whose spiritual disciplines we may find exemplary but whose views - whether liberal or conservative - jar very much with wherever we ourselves happen to be on that spectrum.
I would suggest though, that forms of populist 'social conservatism' do have a tendency to slide very quickly into racism.
Trump and demagogues like him don't operate in a vacuum. He didn't invent this stuff. He taps into fears and attitudes that are already there and manipulates them for his own ends.
Thanks @Gramps49. It's been a good experience so far.
I think the earliest European missionary work into the "New World" would be the starting point of a long example against this.
At least in the US this is not really the case. Black Americans have been pointing out the racism of liberal whites for a long time, and they are right. It is more subtle, at least to the whites who exercise it. But the underlying sense of superiority shows itself, for example, in the way that liberal whites tend to use their own power and voice to support minority races, rather than give over that power and voice.
This is what I was talking about in the thread about churches and disability. Who is in charge? Who makes top level decisions all the time? What does the power structure look like? Who decides what qualifications make a person able to lead, before they are given a chance? On whose basis are those qualifications established? On whose basis are those qualifications enforced?
The recent book "Caste" is painfully helpful in this area. There are many, many others.
Hosts, please feel free to delete this debris.
Even Dune has a white saviour!
I would argue against this but will start a new thread rather than take up space here.
I don't know why "even" Dune - the whole setup is explicitly white saviour, the back story has the foundations for a "white saviour" being purposely laid many generations in advance. The story is consciously written to be critical of "white saviours". There's more than a whiff of TE Lawrence about Paul Atreides.
There's plenty to talk about with how Herbert makes his Fremen the cultural descendants of Muslims, as though that will automatically make them "other" to his audience. Worldbuilding can be an interesting challenge in SF.
That's an interesting take on my response to Lamb Chopped, but what I was doing was pointing out the problem of a purely "human level" approach, which is why Lamb Chopped's reply describing an approach based on (essentially Christian) self-denial and love makes all the difference.
For some (the people running the show), Christian Nationalism seems primarily to be about power, but for others, the *appeal* of Christian Nationalism is that, having encouraged people to project their fears, it promotes power as the answer to those fears.
I think responses need to address both - confronting those seeking to acquire power, but also reassuring those who are putting their hope in it to relieve their fears.
Ultimately, I don't think there's a lot of difference between Lamb Chopped's suggestion and mine - it's more a difference of emphasis or focus - on addressing the underlying fear rather than modelling desired behaviour. Although there's no reason why you can't do both.
The Idaho state legislature is working on a bill to require all public libraries to have a complaint form for any parent to fill out if they find something in the collection that is objectionable. And if the library refuses to pull the material in question, it will give the parent the right to sue the library system.
What's wrong with this idea?
Onc, it does not identify what would be considered objectionable.
Two, it is giving one person the power to determine what all the students and children can have access to.
Three, it does not allow the appropriate board to provide a reasonable defense for keeping the material in the collection.
Hope you never have to deal with such a law.
There have been two other similar bills. The third bill, is going to the house within the week. That is the one I am talking about. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/politics-government/2024-03-11/idaho-legislature-library-bill-books
The document says the organization’s founders are “un-hyphenated Americans, and we believe in a particular Christianity that is not blurred by modernist philosophies.”
It says: “We are willing to act decisively to secure permanently, as much as anything is permanent, the political and social dominance” of their beliefs.
In terms of recruiting, the document says: “Most of all, we seek those who understand the nature of authority and its legitimate forceful exercise in the temporal realm.”
Neither the Claremont Institute nor SACR have any official standing, but Claremont is quite influential in Republican circles, and it was a Claremont fellow, Glenn Elmers, who wrote a couple of years ago that "Most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term," with the clear implication that to be an American is to be a Christian nationalist.
I have third cousins in America, whose family emigrated in 1908, but who still identify as Scottish-American.
Is there any American Christian Nationalist push back against Tartan Day, or against Irish -Americans celebrating St Patrick's Day?
I'm reasonably certain it's just a euphemism for white.
Although you have to factor in the way whiteness is a floating signifier (instructive that the hyphenated communities with the biggest cultural distinctiveness have historically been the ones that existed at or beyond the boundaries of whiteness)
If so, it rather begs the question as to what they mean by 'American' un-hypenated or hyphenated. I thought the definition of an American was someone who was a citizen of the United States of America.
I think @Arethosemyfeet is right, it is a euphemism for 'white', although I suspect it may in some instances exclude Italians, Hispanics and other people of non-Anglo Saxon or 'Celtic' or other northern European origin. Which I imagine is what @Chrisstiles is alluding to.
Whatever the case, it's deeply problematic.
Euro-Americans then and not Native Americans.
@Martin54 Dune is a good example of what I have in mind for more than just Paul the white messiah. The next generation of leaders is still tempered by non Fremen blood and sensibilities, power structures, Culture.
So, by "conservative" do you mean conserving the status quo structures of power (which includes economy)?
Not the window dressing of "conservative issues" or "conservative values"?
Yep. Inequality of outcome. Private opulence for the few and public poverty for the many.
@pease , nobody is running the show. It runs itself, a perpetual motion machine that receives an occassional energy boost and then runs faster for a while. Some boosts in the US I can think of before the election of the 45th president - in random order:
9/11
The Tea Party
WWII
Skopes Trial
Obama's election
Roe v Wade
Reagan
Overthrow of the Shah of Iran
Conflict over Viet Nam War
Nobody's "in charge" of how people understand these things.
The bill that requires libraries to remove a book or other material if someone fills our form objecting to a book/material passed the Idaho House 47-23, Remember, it is a small state.
Under the bill, public libraries and private and public school libraries couldn’t make available to minors under 18 any material that depicts “nudity, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse that is harmful to minors” or “any other material harmful to minors.” The definition for “harmful to minors” includes depictions of sexual content or nudity when it “appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and includes depictions that are “patently offensive to prevailing standards.”
Using that definition, I think I could easily send an objection to the Bible, since I can find stories about nudity, homosexuality, even sado-masochistic abuse. There is also violence, genocide, infanticide etc.
Hopefully, the state Senate will not pass it, or the governor veto it, or it gets ruled unconstitutional in the courts.
I just looked it up. The number is HOUSE BILL 710 of 2024. The 47-23 should actually be: PASSED 47-23-0.
If it passes the state Senate and the gov signs it, it is state law but can be challenged federally. But state legislatures know that the U.S. Supreme Court isn't going to fill up its docket with all these individual state laws.
Idaho's got more library-related nasties in the works as well.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/S1289/
Here they want to redefine the SCOTUS-established definition of "obscenity":
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/H0384/
Sneaking in "sectarian" materials, which had been prohibited before - via section 1.8:
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/H0635/
This one started out well, and then all hell broke loose.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/S1221/
Power to say, "I don't like this so no one else should have access to it either."
The law could, of course, also be challenged in state court. Whether any hope lies there, I cannot say.
I don't think it's intrinsic to being a monarchist to believe the monarch has been chosen by God per se. There are extreme versions of monarchism that think that, but not intrinsic to it any more than preferring any other form of government.
I've been hearing a lot about it and its toxic history from the excellent podcast by Phil Vischer (of Veggietales fame) and Skye Jethani, The Holy Post. Phil was also interviewed for Rob Reiner's documentary about Christian Nationalism, God and Country. The history of this goes back further than I had any idea, and it's ghastly.
It's the default position in regard to the British monarchy, per the coronation service.
But not intrinsic to being OK with/liking monarchy in and of itself, whether British or otherwise. One might as well say that being OK with/liking democracy requires one to believe that whomever is elected has been chosen by God. And there might be "chosen by God" as part of general Providence and "what happens in the universe" as opposed to "chosen by God specifically and to whom absolute, no-limits obedience is required, no matter what" as a concept as well.
I did wonder about the latter distinction, yes, but I don't think the former holds because historically democratically elected governments don't claim that as a general rule (some might say their candidate is backed by God, but not that the victor, whoever it is, is divinely appointed).
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227070827/a-video-making-the-rounds-online-depicts-trump-as-a-messiah-like-figure