in academic circles I would say yes. Founded on Protestant values with the idea of insulating same from immigrants, non whites, non Christians. Nationalism in keeping with same. Different than patriotism. Is that racist? Maybe? Probably. That’s the academic teachings you’ll find in poly sci public policy admin depts - at least it certainly was
Is White Christian Nationalism good for America?
- Thread starter Eppy99
- Start date
White nationalism is inherently racist. Doesn't matter if it's Christian or not. Same with black nationalism. Any kind of racially directed nationalism is racist, at least as the vast majority of us would understand the term.
Correct.
Jefferson was also monotheistic and established church state separation. Broad sense Christianity aligns with this. I also recognize, as I said above, you can find isolated and unimportant groups who support those who can only criticize Christianity, nationalism, and Christian Nationalism
I don’t see your point.
White nationalism is Hitler, KKK, etc. it’s not Christian and likely not nationalist either. I think that is an entirely separate thing.
So which church should control the state in your universe? Madison, Monroe, and Jefferson were Deists, you think they wanted a Christian church to rule over them?
That's an illogical ad hominem argument.
Would you accept the same logic w/r/t socialism? Islam? That is, that someone shouldn't accept any view of socialism or Islam proposed by people who are not socialists or Muslim? Because " in all cases, they intend their view to be pejorative?"
That’s a fair argument. But I don’t think it applies. Islam and socialism enjoy a measure of objectivity from many. Christian Nationalism doesn’t benefit from that. This thread proves the point.
None. Just as the Constitution states. Your claim that Madison, Monroe and Jefferson were deists is hogwash. Ten minutes of research reveals that 'deism' was a trendy popular concept that many experienced during the mid 18th century, but had very few adherents. That our scholarly Founders examined the arguments is completely in character for them. It was, and remains an intellectual exercise.
Eppy, your fear that linking the article about White Christian Nationalists influencing the next Trump administration didn't seem to occur.
In reading the posts following you linking the article it doesn't seem anyone read the link.
Eppy, did you start this thread without posting the link in an effort to find out where the Coolerites stood on White Christian Nationalism?
Upon reading the link the question becomes IMO, Will White Christian Nationalism be the driving force in the next Trump administration?
May be illogical, but Islamists not only reject dissenting views, they are willing to saw off the head of those dissenters, even those attempting to employ non-pejorative approaches to that dissent.
Historically, Socialism doesn't saw off the heads, but will loot and starve non-adherants. (See Bolshevism, etc.)
Yeah, right. Nine minutes of research show that Jefferson attempted to rewrite The Bible, removing all the miracles. That isn't standard Christianity by any account I know. In fact, he removed The Resurrection. That's the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence.
James Madison wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments". You can find it below.
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
teachingamericanhistory.org
tell me how that pretends to want government in religion or religion in government?
You should read down the board - a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum are saying pretty much the same thing about Christian White Nationalism. I don't have time to post a fully reply - you really should look at the posts after this one in this thread and stop trying to argue for arguing's sake.
Fair point, Eppy. I have not looked at the link you sent me. Part of the reason I was curious is that it's not a topic I feel I have a significant understanding of collectively. I've read and seen things about Trump, etc., but I grew up somewhat in a bubble away from incidents like Matthew Shepard.
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with each of these elements, individually. I won't address the race concept because that never ends well on these forums.
Christianity has a long history of pros and cons, like anything that has been around and widespread as it has. Generally, I tend to think of it rather positively. That being said, I'm not sure that Christianity is any better or worse than other religions (Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism) and so long as common sense comes first (e.g., the earth is round), I don't believe religion is necessarily bad as it does provide morals and ethics by which most Western people seek.
However, I would rather lead or emphasize the Nationalist point. There is something great about being proud of a country - a collective group of people with various socioeconomic statuses, personal biases, and opinions. But again, I view myself as an American first, but not to the detriment of other people (e.g., not a proponent for war or conquest, for the sake of such).
That part of the debate has been had here before. The question boils down to if there is a difference between "nationalism" and "patriotism". Some felt there is and that "nationalism" is "patriotism" run amok. Others do not at all see it that way.
Sifting through some of this piece, I guess maybe (according to this Kristin Du Mez they interviewed, anyway) I do have sympathies with White Christian Nationalism after all. For instance...
We can expect this Christian nationalist agenda to transform the public school system. One of the proposals with Christian nationalists is to eliminate the Department of Education, to look to the privatization of schooling, but also to transform the curriculum throughout public schools. The anti-CRT (critical race theory) and anti-woke agenda that we have seen played out on a smaller scale in certain states — that is what we should expect to see on a national scale.
Project 2025 (a conservative blueprint for the next Republican president, although Trump tried to distance himself from it during the 2024 campaign) is explicit about cracking down on woke ideology, eliminating certain terms from laws and federal regulations, terms like “gender equality” and “reproductive rights.” This anti-woke agenda is a key point of unity between White Christian nationalists and the broader MAGA movement.
Let's see....Eliminate the Department of Education? Yep. Count me in on that one. It's worse than pointless. Education is far better managed at the state and local level.Privatization of schooling? I'm not sure what that phrase means. I think we should have publicly funded K12 education. But I also think parents should have some ability to determine how the public funds are allocated -- be it with a private school, a charter school, homeschooling, etc. Is this what she means by "privatization"? If so, then I guess I'm guilty again.
Anti-CRT and anti-woke agenda? Cracking down on woke ideology? Yes, please.
I guess I've just learned something about myself. I've never considered myself a White Christian Nationalist. But, according to her, it's what I am.
Last edited:
I've never figured out the Department of Education hate. It seems to me they administer grants. They enforce things like Title 1X. They fund research on how to improve education and create "best practices" based on that.
But the textbooks used are chosen by locals, and I thought the actual curriculums are some combo of local and state. I know Indiana looked at massively changing ed this last session, but all the state universities said their changes would mean Indiana kids wouldn't be admitted so some changes were made. As far as actual education goes, what does Ed do to block state and local controls? It seems if they had great power, Indiana wouldn't have been trying to pass that bill.
After second draft released, questions linger over Indiana's proposed diploma changes • Indiana Capital Chronicle
Indiana parents, teachers, business owners and lawmakers say they still have questions about a new, proposed high school diploma model.
indianacapitalchronicle.com
Nothing in that article makes me think Department of Ed is crushing state control.
True.
But I also have to say that the interview subject has a different definition of "White Christian Nationalist" than I do. In her view, opposing CRT/Woke, supporting school choice, etc. qualifies somebody as one.
She's clearly just trying to use the negative connotations of the label to try to marginalize those ideas. "Hey, if you don't want me to call you a White Christian Nationalist, then you better stop opposing DEI, you better stop supporting school choice, etc. But if you insist on supporting these things, then I'm going to basically call you a Klansman."
It's an old trick....and also some pretty weak tea. If this is the best these people can do, they're cooked.
Results matter.I've never figured out the Department of Education hate. It seems to me they administer grants. They enforce things like Title 1X. They fund research on how to improve education and create "best practices" based on that.
But the textbooks used are chosen by locals, and I thought the actual curriculums are some combo of local and state. I know Indiana looked at massively changing ed this last session, but all the state universities said their changes would mean Indiana kids wouldn't be admitted so some changes were made. As far as actual education goes, what does Ed do to block state and local controls? It seems if they had great power, Indiana wouldn't have been trying to pass that bill.
After second draft released, questions linger over Indiana's proposed diploma changes • Indiana Capital Chronicle
Indiana parents, teachers, business owners and lawmakers say they still have questions about a new, proposed high school diploma model.
Nothing in that article makes me think Department of Ed is crushing state control.
Education management is a failed concept as far as State/Federal involvement is concerned.
The ignorance of American students should embarrass every citizen
Nothing but downhill after the creation of the DOE...
I've never figured out the Department of Education hate. It seems to me they administer grants. They enforce things like Title 1X. They fund research on how to improve education and create "best practices" based on that.
But the textbooks used are chosen by locals, and I thought the actual curriculums are some combo of local and state. I know Indiana looked at massively changing ed this last session, but all the state universities said their changes would mean Indiana kids wouldn't be admitted so some changes were made. As far as actual education goes, what does Ed do to block state and local controls? It seems if they had great power, Indiana wouldn't have been trying to pass that bill.
After second draft released, questions linger over Indiana's proposed diploma changes • Indiana Capital Chronicle
Indiana parents, teachers, business owners and lawmakers say they still have questions about a new, proposed high school diploma model.
Nothing in that article makes me think Department of Ed is crushing state control.
I'm not necessarily arguing that it crushes state control. I just think it's useless and superfluous. The states are far better suited to handle it and don't need a federal agency.
What necessary functions it serves can be served elsewhere without an entire cabinet level agency. When Congress allocates education dollars, they can just do it in the form of block grants to states. They don't need anybody administering them.
Let me put it this way: the Dept. of Education was established around 1980ish. I feel pretty strongly that our public education system has not improved one bit since then because of it. As such, what's the point? Just to declare that we, as a nation, value education? That...unless something has its own federal bureaucracy, we don't value it as a nation?
But, really, my point wasn't to argue about the DOE. My point was that, according to the lady interviewed in the linked piece, wanting to abolish the DOE makes somebody a White Christian Nationalist.
Craze, realize you may be white in terms of skin color, but didn't see anything in your post which tells me the "White" in White Christian Nationalist is important to you.
Also it seems to me the state of Indiana is well on its way toward meeting your goals with or without the next Trump administration taking on a White Christian Nationalist agenda. The exception being the elimination of the Department of Education which the Indiana state legislature cannot accomplish.
Well, it's not. I have no interest in any movements that are predicated on race. I am and have long been an advocate of social and legal color-blindness. I look forward to the day when we can get past race as such a matter of division.....but, sadly, there are a lot of people heavily invested in that division and keeping it alive.
They oppose social and legal color-blindness....which, honestly, the first time I heard somebody say that it took me aback. I always thought that was a broadly shared goal.
To me, it's semantics.
Britannica's definition reads:
Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests.
Merriam-Webster reads:
An ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities, or supranational groups
That is how I viewed it and how I feel.
Other sources seem to go beyond this and suggest that it leads directly to oppression and detriment of others. Those may be valid definitions, in their own right or using modern subjectivity, but aren't where I align.
To me, the notion of Nationalism is a noble one and combats individualism, which seems to have contributed several negative influences in our society.
One of the key parts of whatever definition you use is the emphasis on nation rather than nation-state (I know Britannica has an either-or in there, but generally, people use the term nationalism for the former). Germany is a nation-state. The German nation is a national identity that includes Germans both within and without Germany. German nationalism promotes the interests of the German nation, not Germany the state. I use Germany as an example, because it offers a readily accessible lesson in the excesses of nationalism. The German nation was never unified in the 19th C. largely because the Hohenzollerns didn't want to play second fiddle to the Habsburgs. But eventually Hitler came along, and German nationalism was an important component of Nazi ideology that directly led to much of his Eastern policy: the Anschluss and annexation of the Sudetenland to unify all Germans, and then Lebensraum to provide for the German people (at the expense of others, like the Slavs).
But not all instances of nationalism are so readily dismissed as dangerous or evil. Modern examples of nationalism that seem to be romanticized by many might include Scottish and Catalan nationalism, which are really just separatist movements, and don't appear to want to promote Scottish or Catalan interests at the expense of others. So I think one might argue that nationalism generically can be positive or negative, depending on how far one takes it, ranging from simple self-determination to supremacy over others.
However, in a multinational state like the US, most nationalist movements are not nearly so generic. You won't find a lot of American Nationalists (but see below re: MAGA). Instead, you have white nationalists and black nationalists, and so forth, and those modifiers don't just describe the members, but define the ideology, as well. So a White Christian Nationalist isn't just a nationalist who happens to be a white Christian. Rather, he's a nationalist that defines his national identity specifically as limited to white Christians, and will promote their interests over others. Taken to the furthest extreme, he will argue that non-whites and non-Christians aren't truly Americans and ultimately should be removed from the country.
These people truly exist, but I don't think they make up the majority of MAGA. I think MAGA are mostly nativists. They might be more comfortable around other white Christians, just for the familiarity, but they won't deny that a natural born black or Jewish citizen is or ought to be truly a member of the American nation. Rather, as is being discussed in another thread, the extreme ends of their ideology are found in their rabid opposition to immigration, both legal and illegal. In that sense, MAGA might be seen as a rather hardcore version of that generic American Nationalism that I said above is generally rare in a country like ours.
Last edited:
Looking at Miriam-Webster, there is this:
Nationalism and patriotism are similar insofar as both words emphasize strong feelings for one’s country. However, the two words are not synonymous. Nationalism, while it refers to loyalty and devotion to a nation, tends to imply the placing of that nation above others, a tendency that is not necessarily implicit in patriotism.
I buy that in a way. I am patriotic. I personally buy the US the best, but I can understand why someone somewhere else may disagree. There is no good, solid way to measure that. I see Facebook posts for two things that illustrate this, a page for Chicago Italian Beed and a page for the pork tenderloin.
On both, people will eat the chosen food somewhere and discuss what they like, didn't like. Let's say they love it. Immediately people will jump in with, "it is terrible, how could anyone like that slop." It is completely subjective, I get commenting, "I like restaurant Y more" but the sheer animosity takes me aback.
That's how I feel about nationalism. I have no way of proving America is better to a disinterested third party. I love the US, I'll let anyone else decide what they think. I suspect there are quite a few nations that, had I been born into and lived in all my life, I might feel were the greatest. We all tend to value different aspects differently. As much as I have supported US involvement in Ukraine, we are involved in many, many places. I could see people in other countries holding that as very much a negative.
I am not sure patriotism doesn't fit the idea of "a noble one and combats individualism."
Please tell us what improvements have resulted from DOE actions?I've never figured out the Department of Education hate. It seems to me they administer grants. They enforce things like Title 1X. They fund research on how to improve education and create "best practices" based on that.
But the textbooks used are chosen by locals, and I thought the actual curriculums are some combo of local and state. I know Indiana looked at massively changing ed this last session, but all the state universities said their changes would mean Indiana kids wouldn't be admitted so some changes were made. As far as actual education goes, what does Ed do to block state and local controls? It seems if they had great power, Indiana wouldn't have been trying to pass that bill.
After second draft released, questions linger over Indiana's proposed diploma changes • Indiana Capital Chronicle
Indiana parents, teachers, business owners and lawmakers say they still have questions about a new, proposed high school diploma model.
Nothing in that article makes me think Department of Ed is crushing state control.
Sorry for the hit and run posts today - but I wanted to share a book that hits on all this stuff. Jesus and John Wayne is a pretty good deep dive into how White Evangelical Christians have evolved and found themselves entrenched in American leadership and power. It's well thought out and fairly reasoned, warts and all.
Now that I'm thinking of it, I think this might've been brought up here before.
Now that I'm thinking of it, I think this might've been brought up here before.
Yes, I really wanted to gauge where the board stood on this but in general I thought it would be thought provoking subject.
Similar threads
- Poll
WC Poll: Are you in favor of racial preferences in college admissions?
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler 2 3
