Is White Christian Nationalism good for America?
- Thread starter Eppy99
- Start date
Absolutely, but before I do so is it possible the source of the article will give bias to people’s answers? I found the article interesting and educated me a bit, but as always the source does matter to many. So with that said is it still important I post the article as it pertains to this poll?
Sort of a loaded question. And term. Patriotism historically relates to country and nationalism your people or tribe if memory serves. In the current milieu it’s not a good thing. Sort of the polar of the attack on white men we’ve experienced the 4 years prior.
The white Christian nationalism tends to arise when there’s instability or threats. Again the last 4 years has been a feeder with what I wrote and immigrantion insanity.
So no it’s not a good thing today. We’re going to be divided again for a while
If we break down the phrase into its component parts.
White - neither good or bad, neutral
Christian- That’s good
Nationalism - generally good
So I would say we probably need more White Christian Nationalists. As long as they aren’t exclusionary of say Black Christian Nationalists or White Jewish Nationalists.
White - neither good or bad, neutral
Christian- That’s good
Nationalism - generally good
So I would say we probably need more White Christian Nationalists. As long as they aren’t exclusionary of say Black Christian Nationalists or White Jewish Nationalists.
Christianity is great for a country and produces the best results for a nation. WCN is a purposely subjective political term used to disparage a group of people that don’t vote for their party.
Last edited:
White Christian Nationalism seems contrary to our basic values which include freedom of religion and all men are created equal.
Which part is contrary? An overwhelming percentage of the founders were white Christians who loved their country.
Inherently, faith and national pride are good things. Unfortunately they’ve been co-opted and perverted to a level that even the mention of them evokes divisiveness.
The loudest voices talking about Christian nationalism aren’t actually very Christian in the truest sense and the nationalistic pride they have is for a country that would intentionally omit of their fellow countrymen.
The loudest voices talking about Christian nationalism aren’t actually very Christian in the truest sense and the nationalistic pride they have is for a country that would intentionally omit of their fellow countrymen.
Didn't they also believe in protecting the basic rights of the minority among which includes freedom of religion and not discriminating against race or place of origin.
Granted it took a long time to work out the race problem because of slavery. White nationalism, in the minds of some of us, indicates the problem lingers.
Last edited:
Your issue then is with the subjective concept of nationalism. Why include the objective descriptors white and Christian?
Pride of home, neighborhood, city, state, and country can be both positive and natural. This positive and natural pride gives us a common bond of nationalism.
Other countries around the globe also share a common bond.
Thus nationalism is a global reality.
WCN is not just nationalism by white Christians. It's nationalism for whom the nation in question is white Christians. It includes a small minority of actual white Christians.
What dummy did you read that word salad from? My suggestion is stop reading them. The answer is post 5.
Some particulars are in order.
But the first thought off the top of my head is that a political movement that is based in any way on racial identity is very likely to be divisive and harmful to social tranquility.
Granted, movements like the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s obviously involved race - but it was centered around eliminating enduring racial injustices. Contrast that with the much smaller (but usually louder) radical movements like the Black Panther Party. While I’m sure they’d cite the same injustices, both their methods and their aims were quite different. To them, racial injustice was more of a convenient cloak. The BPP was explicitly Marxist-Leninist.
I’m also leery of a political movement rooted in religion. We are, formally, a pluralistic society. And we should always aim to keep it that way.
But the first thought off the top of my head is that a political movement that is based in any way on racial identity is very likely to be divisive and harmful to social tranquility.
Granted, movements like the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s obviously involved race - but it was centered around eliminating enduring racial injustices. Contrast that with the much smaller (but usually louder) radical movements like the Black Panther Party. While I’m sure they’d cite the same injustices, both their methods and their aims were quite different. To them, racial injustice was more of a convenient cloak. The BPP was explicitly Marxist-Leninist.
I’m also leery of a political movement rooted in religion. We are, formally, a pluralistic society. And we should always aim to keep it that way.
Christian nationalism Is one thing. White Christian Nationalism is a different thing.
You are wasting time.
So if we remove the title of white from Christian Nationalism is that more acceptable and better for America as it doesn’t feel or sound more racially divisive?
Then the next question remains is Christian Nationalism good for America?
Wiki (I know great source) defines the term as:
Christian nationalism is a form of religious nationalism that focuses on promoting the Christian views of its followers, in order to achieve prominence or dominance in political and social life.
I’m interested in continuing this conversation from both points of view, white vs non-white.
Then the next question remains is Christian Nationalism good for America?
Wiki (I know great source) defines the term as:
Christian nationalism is a form of religious nationalism that focuses on promoting the Christian views of its followers, in order to achieve prominence or dominance in political and social life.
I’m interested in continuing this conversation from both points of view, white vs non-white.
I have NO idea what "White Christian Nationalism" is. So, I can not comment.
How is it any different than promoting atheism? Socialism? Democratism? Liberalism? Republicanism? Conservatism? We’re all promoting our views and trying to achieve prominence or dominance.
I personally fear all of them (humans are behind them), which is why I’m for as small as a government as possible and am an advocate for free markets.
I won’t comment on white Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism flows from the Declararyion of Independence and is a cornerstone of our view of sovereignty.
While I understand small numbers of people will think and believe anything, I don’t believe any religious or political leader of stature commented along the lines that Cristian Nationalism is exclusionary, anti-democratic or gang-like. Such views are facially ridiculous.
So what is Christian Nationalism? Well, it’s not a group of people; instead, it’s a belief that Jefferson stated very well in the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
Basic human rights do not come from kings or other rulers; they come from the creator. . Governments are formed to secure these rights. ( An atheist might believe these rights exist in nature). This is Nationalism and Christianity.
I don’t accept any view of Christianity or nationalist proposed by people who are neither. In all cases, they intend their view to be a pejorative.
Don’t agree. Government by consent of the governed isn’t dominance. That said, there are those who make every effort to achieve dominance or one party rule by persuasion, intimidation, censorship or other restrictive measures. None of that is Christian nationalism.
But what about the 1st Amendent? Is that not a contradiction of this POV?
An overview of the 1st Amendent:
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of expression and religion from government interference. It states that Congress cannot make laws that establish a religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or limit freedom of speech, the press, or assembly. It also protects the right to petition the government to address grievances. The First Amendment establishes fundamental rights for the people while limiting the government's power.
I used dominance because it was in the definition. I prefer prominence. Also. I was trying to apply the definition to all the “isms” rather than just Christianity.
Also, I can see how someone considers it dominance when 51% of the population can vote to take away something from the other 49% of the population. Is it a preferred method to the alternative? Of course, but the process is still the process and I’m not going to qualm over someone describing it at as dominance. Slavery was lawful at one time.
Why does everyone feel the need to hear an argument equally from both sides on every issue? I understand it’s needed for some issues, but every perspective doesn’t warrant equal consideration. I don’t need to hear the Klan’s perspective on anything, I don’t need to hear the Nazi perspective on anything. “White” Christian Nationalism is all I need to know in order to know I don’t give a flying f*** what a certain side’s perspective is. Or am I not objective enough because I don’t give a damn what racists think?
I suspect Jefferson was not touting Christian Nationalism given he was a Deist. Is Deist Nationalism a thing?
I understand your POV, but so far 6 people have voted “yes” to the poll question so they should equally be heard.
@The Original Happy Goat this a perfect example to illustrate my point and why you got a shit answer for me. There is a small percentage of the population like yourself and CO who are well read and able to have a conversation on it. So, sure you guys want to have those conversations. However, the purpose of WCN it is to target people that will warrant responses like BHE. White Christians = racism. There are vastly more BHEs than COs. It’s nothing more than basic propaganda and very effective. Similar to the other isms and phobias. They’re purposely subjective by design, so the reader can apply it how they seat fit. Usually, not in the most positive light.
Last edited:
Mass, the key phrase in Ohio's post was "Christian in the truest sense" in my view.
On this, given the various sects within Christianity there can exist some differences on the truest sense.
On the other hand, there are some values with which there may be little disagreement. These possibly are the values to which Ohio may be referring. Then again, you and Ohio may not agree.
I fear linking the article and its source may bias the context of the question, but here you go.
White Christian Nationalism
Similar threads
- Poll
WC Poll: Are you in favor of racial preferences in college admissions?
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler 2 3
