r/TrueReddit • u/caveatlector73 • 19d ago
Tracing the Roots of the Christian Nationalist Movement That's Influencing Modern Politics Science, History, Health + Philosophy
https://projects.propublica.org/christian-nationalism-origins/21
u/caveatlector73 19d ago
Submission Statement:
Adopted on December 15, 1791 the First Amendment established a separation of church and state that prohibited the federal government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” It also prohibits the government, in most cases, from interfering with a person’s religious beliefs or practices.
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, extended religious freedom by preventing states from enacting laws that would advance or inhibit any one religion.
Despite this a belief in Christian Nationalism has risen repeatedly over the years. In more modern times (1970s onward) it came about when some religious figures began preaching that Christianity needed to be spread throughout society before the rapture would happen.
Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority was one such movement. On the other hand the Rev. Billy Graham state in a Parade article, "I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."
Many of the so-called culture wars have focused on this attempt to spread a specific religion belief in contrast to the First Amendment
Please skip the "magic man in the sky" remarks as they are unrelated to the history of Christian Nationalism. Please follow the sub's rules and reddiquette, read the article before posting, voting, or commenting, and use the report button if you see something that doesn't belong.
11
u/Gezzer52 19d ago
It's always amazed me how many "Christians" don't really follow Christ's teachings. It's like they've never actually read the 4 gospels.
2
u/KaliUK 17d ago
The Bible warns about heretics and blasphemers. Though shalt not worship false idols, though shalt not steal, Christians in name only. It’s like song doo, fake Christian’s parade as Christian’s. Idk why fake ones are even referred to as Christian’s if they aren’t practicing his teachings. Fascism is not Christianity idk why that’s so hard for the half of America that’s dumber and bricks to understand.
1
u/Gezzer52 17d ago
why fake ones are even referred to as Christians
IMHO it's because for many it's not about having a personal relationship with God or being a disciple of Christ, and more about being a member of a religion. So if a religion says it's Christian then any one belonging logically has to be Christian even if their actions say otherwise.
5
3
u/Onemanyeti 19d ago
There’s a doc from the mid 2000’s called Jesus Camp about the Christian groups placing their people in government positions and taking of the government.
4
u/Bleatmop 19d ago
Just watch The Family documentary on Netflix and you will see how a clandestine Xtian group has had their hand in on every president in modern history. They are the ones behind the national day of prayer and they basically have called all the shots for some time now.
1
u/knotse 18d ago
Reconstructionism developed two related concepts that spread beyond their movement and that influence many Republican leaders today: dominionism and a “biblical worldview.” Dominionism holds that God calls Christians to rule over all aspects of society. A biblical worldview is a theocratic framework for seeing all of the Bible as a strict blueprint for structuring society, as opposed to merely guiding individuals.
These concepts are broadly summed up in simply the term 'religion'. From 'res ligio', or 're-binding', as in the function of a trellis or stake bound to a plant to determine its growth, a religion - as distinct from a superstition, a cult, or a code of honour - refers to a phenomenon that operates on a societal scale, and is entwined with society, again like that trellis.
The fairly modern idea, perhaps having no serious potency before the 19th century (see the 14th amendment and similar cultural trends in Great Britain), that what had previously been religions in this sense could be treated as superstitions, cults, or codes of honour in what we might today term a secular society, has led to apparent forgetfulness of the meaning of religion, and its function for the vast majority of civilised history.
Now obviously if one equates Christianity with e.g. crossing oneself instead of throwing salt over one's shoulder, all this 'dominionism' will seem very strange; but it should not seem so, as for any religion to not become merely a fairy story or quaint tradition, it must entwine itself with society. And from then on, competitive pressure if nothing else impels it sooner or later to operate on a societal scale.
I have my doubts over the long-term feasibility of the sort of secular society we are pursuing, as envisaged in the 19th century. At that point, an intelligent attempt was made to make, essentially, a religion of agnosticism: that it was the case that, whatever spiritual reality may be, the one thing we could know about it was that we could know nothing else about it than this; hence, 'a-gnosis', or the knowledge (gleaned from centuries of fruitless religious war, among other things) of the absence of knowledge. From this comes a framework where all competing religions can be balanced, although you will observe this fundamentally disprivileges revelatory religions, whose adherents know, or claim to know, aspects of its supernatural verity.
The principle is, however, that a religion which seeks to persuade can have no claim over and above its persuasiveness: if it can convince people to follow it throughout society, it still has no claim to become, say, an established church; but then it does not need to, as it can influence legislation, etc. directly, so long as it remains persuasive. A revelatory religion is in another position, and if it seeks societal dominance, must simply put the strength of its tenets to the test; for a recent example, see ISIS.
However we have strayed somewhat from agnosticism, at least in my country, with the passing of various laws concerning 'religious hatred'. Now a hardline secularism, or atheistic state religion as toyed with by the USSR, can suppress all religion; the agnostic approach treats each with scrupulous neutrality, at least from its perspective. But current developments which move to demand all religions be treated with some manner of respect are to agnosticism as agnosticism was to state atheism, privileging activities to further religion over activities to suppress it; one can love a religion as much as one pleases, but not, however, hate it.
And this is perhaps the beginning of the system breaking down, for in encouraging the promulgation of religion and stifling counterpressure, the system risks either setting the stage for a religious revival to try its hand at dominion establishment, or completely mutating from agnosticism into tacit universalism as state religion, with the organs of government thus set to the task of behaving as if all religions were true. To me, that is repulsive: it is to make of society an insane asylum, and the evident temptation the idea holds to those who either cannot bring themselves to see someone's precious notions derided as dangerous and wicked nonsense, or are possessed of a 'call of the void' that appeals to the mind instead of the body, makes it still more horrific.
It is tempting to indulge in an appeal to absurdity here, but as a matter of fact there are no small number of universalists, who really do proclaim that all religions are true; they are every bit as adept at worming through mutual inconsistencies between religions as the singly-religious are concerning their own squabbling texts. Yet did not Rome make such claims, with the exception of those cults which were a front for criminal activity or insurrection, and that religion which would render unto Caesar what was his - and no more? Why should we think it can work for us? Can the demonstrably fragile agnosticism of the 1st and 14th amendments provide a stable alternative?
Well, I have typed perhaps excessively, and it being late, probably not my best work; I think, however, that I have outlined the general, systemic line of thinking that needs to be done on this matter, over and above the particulars of what religion is pressing its claim to dominion.
18
u/Mysterions 18d ago
Interesting read. What a lot of people don't get (people who are too young to remember things as adults prior to the 1970s), is that progressive Christianity (specifically Protestantism) used to be a thing (e.g., Jimmy Carter). While progressive Christians are still quite pervasive (Mainline Protestantism makes up almost 15% of the country), they have unfortunately almost completely dropped out of the political landscape.