Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

I think what you are talking about isn't the Christian Nationalism discussed in the OP. It sounds like what you are talking about here is racial, ethnocentric Nationalism which just so happens to be espoused by people who claim to be Christians. But those aren't the same thing.

Those who are sympathetic to Christian Nationalist sentiments come from all races. I have heard such comments from Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians (dots, not feathers), etc.

Also, while it may be tempting to try and style efforts to bolster religious freedom as attempts to erode the separation of church and state and create a so-called Christian Nation, I would remind people that those freedoms apply to people of all religions - not just Christians. The same religious freedom protections that Christians employ to defend their rights (e.g., to pray in public after a football game) are likewise used by Muslim citizens who claim exceptions to employer dress codes and hairstyle rules; Jewish litigants or witnesses who claim exemptions from court rules which require people to keep their heads uncovered in court; Indian employees who ask time off work to celebrate their holy days; etc.

 

I'm concerned about these kinds of things:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/28/lauren-boebert-church-state-colorado/

https://politicalwire.com/2022/08/06/lauren-boebert-wants-biblical-citizenship-test/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/09/what-is-christian-nationalism/10211671002/?gnt-cfr=1

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

I'm concerned about these kinds of things:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/28/lauren-boebert-church-state-colorado/

https://politicalwire.com/2022/08/06/lauren-boebert-wants-biblical-citizenship-test/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/09/what-is-christian-nationalism/10211671002/?gnt-cfr=1

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html

The issue for me is that the so-called Christian Nationalists don't believe that freedom of religion applies equally to all religions. They want Christianity (usually Protestant) to hold a privileged place in American civic, cultural, and governmental life. I remember listening to an interview with a Mississippi legislator who had sponsored and passed a bill that allowed for state funds to be used for religion-based schools. It was fine with her until she found out that money was being used for Muslim madrassas in the state. That is how Christian Nationalism works: they say they're on board with the Constitution and equal protection of religious freedom, but they really aren't. 

As I mentioned earlier, that a lot of these same folks tend to hold rather ethnocentric views of what it means to be an American is not that surprising.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I'm concerned about these kinds of things: [...]

I understand. And I'm not saying these sorts of things should be ignored, but I don't think we need to give them more credence than they warrant either.

Heck, one of the four articles you referenced was literally written by the woman who founded Christians Against Christian Nationalism.

In my opinion, Christian Nationalism is (and always has been) a very fringe thing, and the likelihood that it will ever amount to anything is functionally zero.

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I understand. And I'm not saying these sorts of things should be ignored, but I don't think we need to give them more credence than they warrant either.

Heck, one of the four articles you referenced was literally written by the woman who founded Christians Against Christian Nationalism.

In my opinion, Christian Nationalism is (and always has been) a very fringe thing, and the likelihood that it will ever amount to anything is functionally zero.

 

It seems to be gaining a foothold in certain circles, and I'd rather we nip it in the bud before it does amount to anything. Before this year, I never would have imagined that the Supreme Court would approve of school employees leading children in prayer at a school event on school property.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The issue for me is that the so-called Christian Nationalists don't believe that freedom of religion applies equally to all religions. They want Christianity (usually Protestant) to hold a privileged place in American civic, cultural, and governmental life.

And they can want whatever they want until the cows come home. But until they've got enough votes to amend the US Constitution (read: never) there is nothing to worry about.

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I remember listening to an interview with a Mississippi legislator who had sponsored and passed a bill that allowed for state funds to be used for religion-based schools. It was fine with her until she found out that money was being used for Muslim madrassas in the state. That is how Christian Nationalism works: they say they're on board with the Constitution and equal protection of religious freedom, but they really aren't. 

Yes, I have seen this sort of thing play out before. There do exist a set of Christians who want the government to support their private religious-based schools, but not those run by other ("false") religions. (Which, parenthetically, is more than a little bit ironic, seeing as how most states which have Blaine amendments prohibiting funding religious schools were originally put in place by Anti-Catholic Protestants decades ago).

Here's my question though: Did the state of Mississippi then go on to prohibit the use of state funds to be used for Muslim schools just because that's not what this legislator intended?

Of course not, because that's not how things work in our country, regardless of what some individuals may or may not want.

And, if we're being honest, I strongly suspect that the MS legislator you are referring to wasn't even that mad that state funds were being used for Muslim schools; she was probably just mad that it came out during an election cycle and an even more religiously conservative candidate was going to be running ads saying that she was 'using taxpayer dollars to teach Islam' (or some such nonsense). Well, live by the religious right / die by the religious right I suppose.

 

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And they can want whatever they want until the cows come home. But until they've got enough votes to amend the US Constitution (read: never) there is nothing to worry about.

 

Yes, I have seen this sort of thing play out before. There do exist a set of Christians who want the government to support their private religious-based schools, but not those run by other ("false") religions. (Which, parenthetically, is more than a little bit ironic, seeing as how most states which have Blaine amendments prohibiting funding religious schools were originally put in place by Anti-Catholic Protestants decades ago).

Here's my question though: Did the state of Mississippi then go on to prohibit the use of state funds to be used for Muslim schools just because that's not what this legislator intended?

Of course not, because that's not how things work in our country, regardless of what some individuals may or may not want.

And, if we're being honest, I strongly suspect that the MS legislator you are referring to wasn't even that mad that state funds were being used for Muslim schools; she was probably just mad that it came out during an election cycle and an even more religiously conservative candidate was going to be running ads saying that she was 'using taxpayer dollars to teach Islam' (or some such nonsense). Well, live by the religious right / die by the religious right I suppose.

 

You are much more confident in the resiliency of our Constitutional republic than I am. 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I understand. And I'm not saying these sorts of things should be ignored, but I don't think we need to give them more credence than they warrant either.

Heck, one of the four articles you referenced was literally written by the woman who founded Christians Against Christian Nationalism.

In my opinion, Christian Nationalism is (and always has been) a very fringe thing, and the likelihood that it will ever amount to anything is functionally zero.

 

And yet we have two (albeit loony) members of Congress speaking openly in support of such a movement.

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And yet we have two (albeit loony) members of Congress speaking openly in support of such a movement.

Wait, there are loons in Congress? Who knew?

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And yet we have two (albeit loony) members of Congress speaking openly in support of such a movement.

If I had a dollar for every loonie thing said by members of Congress I would be richer than Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk combined.

Look, like I said before, I'm not saying we should be ignoring these people completely - they do exist after all; but they don't exist and pose any sort of meaningful threat to anybody.

It would be like walking around all day (every day) and constantly fearing that you might get a paper cut on your eyeball. Is that something that could really happen? I mean, technically, I suppose that's something that could happen, but the perceived to actual risk ratio is just way out of whack with reality.

Now, maybe I am wrong in my estimate of the threat posed by Christian Nationalism. So I'll leave with this:

If it turns out that you and others who seem more concerned about this are actually in the right on this, then please know that when the day comes you can count on me - heretical Christian that I might be - to stand with you against it.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Amulek said:

If I had a dollar for every loonie thing said by members of Congress I would be richer than Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk combined.

Look, like I said before, I'm not saying we should be ignoring these people completely - they do exist after all; but they don't exist and pose any sort of meaningful threat to anybody.

It would be like walking around all day (every day) and constantly fearing that you might get a paper cut on your eyeball. Is that something that could really happen? I mean, technically, I suppose that's something that could happen, but the perceived to actual risk ratio is just way out of whack with reality.

Now, maybe I am wrong in my estimate of the threat posed by Christian Nationalism. So I'll leave with this:

If it turns out that you and others who seem more concerned about this are actually in the right on this, then please know that when the day comes you can count on me - heretical Christian that I might be - to stand with you against it.

 

I hope I'm wrong. I'm just noting a propensity for violence among self-professed Christian Nationalists. The last couple of years have suggested to me that violence is not out of the question. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/1/2022 at 12:28 PM, smac97 said:

I've been reading a bit about "Christian Nationalism."  As with so many things these days, it's sort of challenging to find a clinical, objective assessment of the concept.  For example, Dictionary.com defines nationalism as 

That seems pretty reasonable.  But then Dictionary.com also has an article comparing "nationalism" with "patriotism" (notably, which was published on April 17, 2020, in the run-up to the presidential election between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden).  This article focuses on connotations (patriotism = good, nationalism = bad) :

See also Wikipedia's entry on nationalism:

One of the links above, about "different types of nationalism," merits some attention:

So "Christian Nationalism" would, arguably, be a manifestation of "Religious nationalism":  

As Latter-day Saints, we may want to look at "religious nationalism" in Russia and how the Church and its members have been treated there (not good).

The Wikipedia entry on "Christian Nationalism" in the U.S. is also worth a look:

Notably, however, Whitehead and Perry, authors of Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, based the above list on survey/polling results (they framed the above six statements as questions and asked respondents their level of agreement/disagreement), note that "just over seven percent of the population strongly disagrees with every question," while "{o}nly one percent of Americans strongly agree  with all the statements."  Put another way, they state that "most Americans fall somewhere in the middle of the distribution" because "{w}hile a significant number place themselves at the upper and lower ends of the distribution, a majority are neither strongly opposed to nor strongly supportive of Christian nationalism," and that "Americans are not unevenly clumped at either end of the the scale, {and} their support for Christian nationalism is widely distributed along the scale." 

The authors propose that the "distribution" spectrum can be categorized using "rougth guidelines" of 1) "Rejecters" (of Christian nationalism) to 2) "Resisters" to 3) "Accommodators" to 4) "Ambassadors," as follows:

The authors further state that "while 50 to 60 percent of Americans may agree or strongly agree with one of the six questions, fewer will answer consistently across all six," such that Americans have "diverse responses to Christian nationalism and the consequences of that ideology for public opinion and political behavior."

Christian nationalism seems far from monolithic, or cohesive, or coherently defined.  Only one percent of Americans "strongly agree" with it, as compared with seven percent who "strongly disagree" with it.

Also, the six statements used by Whitehead and Perry do not seem to have a racial component, and yet racism is a central criticism against Christian Nationalism.

Anyway, in the spirit of Krister Stendahl first Rule of Religious Understanding ("When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies"), I figured Christianity Today would be a good place to start (written by Paul D. Miller, a professor of the practice of international affairs at Georgetown University and a research fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) :

That last bit drew my attention as a Latter-day Saint: "When nationalists go about constructing their nation, they have to define who is, and who is not, part of the nation."

More:

"Christian nationalists want to define America as a Christian nation."

Why?  Why would defining America "as a Christian nation" be superior to the America being a religiously pluralistic, secular-but-still-zealously-protective-of-religious-liberty country?

"{T}hey want the government to promote a specific cultural template as the official culture of the country."

Again, why?  Can't we inculcate our preferred values on Sundays and at home?  Why have the government do it?  

And note the emphasis on schools.  Boy, it sure would be nice if schools got back to the basics.  I don't like the over-the-top indoctrination in schools of LGBT stuff, but I also don't like the idea of teachers and civil servants specifically advocating a particular set of religious sentiments on the taxpayer's dime.  

"Some ... have argued that the United States government must defend and enshrine its predominant 'Anglo-Protestant' culture."

Not really liking this.  Governments do a poor job when they expressly elevate one religion or religioius group over others.  

Also, the Church started with growth in mostly-Protestant America and Northern Europe.  In my lifetime, however, these sources have withered, replaced with growth of the Church happening amongst mostly-Hispanics (North and South America), the Phillipines, Polynesia, and Africa.  Most of these folks are neither "Anglo" nor "Protestant."  The Latter-day Saints are, in ever increasing measures, intertwined in terms of racial/ethnic categories, which should put us at odds with an ideology pushing a particular racial/ethnic "culture."  As Latter-day Saints I think we should be building our own culture, rather than pushing for the government to "enshrine" one.  And since we will, in the end, not quite fit in as "Protestants," we probably ought not support enshrining that either.

Back to the Christianity Today article:

The concern here about "exacerbat{ing} racial and ethnic cleavages" is, I think, a fair point.  But I'm not sure it is a basis for characterizing Christian Nationalism as inherently racist.

The above concern about a burgeoning willingness to resort to violence to pursue political objectives.

The article concludes well:

Very good stuff.

Another pretty good resource: Christian Nationalism Explained: An Interview with Rutgers Professor Joseph Williams

Here is a July 2022 article by Sam Brunson at By Common Consent: Christian Nationalis{m} Is Incompatible with Mormonism

Some excerpts: 

Solid points, all.

This article posits that Latter-day Saints, when plotted on the above Whitehead/Perry spectrum, "are comparable to evangelicals nationally":

Again, there does not seem to be a "racial" component in the above analysis, and yet "Christian Nationalism" appears to be getting correlated with "White Nationalism."  For example, in 2019 the Deseret News interviewed Andrew Whitehead: What is white nationalism? And what does it have to do with religion? Some excerpts:

There's the supposed nexus.  Whitehead is suggesting that "the more strongly you embrace Christian nationalism, the more likely you are to hold negative attitudes toward racial and religious minorities," and that this is "consistent over time and in different surveys."

I would like to better understand this.  If it is true, the Latter-day Saints need to know about this nexus and be cautious of it.  

The article continues:

The Deseret News followed up on this topic in February 2021:  How Americans can address Christian nationalism in their congregations and communities

Worth a reas.  This one also (a May 2022 opinion piece in the Deseret News) : Perspective: What’s the difference between Christian nationalism and healthy patriotism?

Also probably worth a read: 

• White Christian Nationalist Mormons
• Religious liberty is not “Christian Nationalism”

To sum up:

• The apparent racial component of Christian Nationalism (in some quarters) is problematic.
• The advocacy of intertwining religion with the State is problematic.
• The notion that the Latter-day Saints would be welcomed to the table should ardent Christian Nationalists have their way is . . . pretty iffy.
• I have questions about the legitimacy of connecting "Christian Nationalism" to "White Nationalism," as Whitehead does above.  I'll need to look at the data.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just because your post is extensive, what fully constitutes Christian Nationalism from both a theological and non theological perspective? I've recently heard a certain Georgia and a Colorado woman determine their definitions.

[smac97]

Interesting perspective.

He makes a good point about letting your opponents label you.  However, there still seem to be a number of tenets underlying "Christian Nationalism" that are deeply problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Hmmm…..only uses the law to get into power so they can destroy it? Well, civility demands we let the fascist speak and spread his message. Gotta have civility for the fascists whose goal is to deprive people of their rights and murder them.

If only there were some way to communicate that would show our disapproval of fascism in a way that fascist cowards can actually understand. Maybe those hand things at the end of our arms could be fashioned into some crude kind of communication system? Maybe if propelled towards the fascist at high speed it would convince the fascist that continuing to advocate for the destruction of freedom is unacceptable and send said fascist home crying about how mean people are for not letting them spread their hate? Just spitballing ideas here.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hmmm…..only uses the law to get into power so they can destroy it? Well, civility demands we let the fascist speak and spread his message. Gotta have civility for the fascists whose goal is to deprive people of their rights and murder them.

If only there were some way to communicate that would show our disapproval of fascism in a way that fascist cowards can actually understand. Maybe those hand things at the end of our arms could be fashioned into some crude kind of communication system? Maybe if propelled towards the fascist at high speed it would convince the fascist that continuing to advocate for the destruction of freedom is unacceptable and send said fascist home crying about how mean people are for not letting them spread their hate? Just spitballing ideas here.

Clodfelter approves of bullying, so sounds like he will back your tactics if he isn’t a hypocrite (obviously he is from the above with his free speech for all including ‘me and mine until it’s all mine and then only me and mine’).

ugh, read a bit of what he promotes. Best  argument against free speech I have seen in a long time. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Just now, Calm said:

Clodfelter approves of bullying, so sounds like he will back your tactics if he isn’t a hypocrite (obviously he is from the above with his free speech for all including ‘me and mine until it’s all mine and then only me and mine’).

ugh

More evidence that this Universe is a simulation that is breaking down. I mean…..Dalton Clodfelter? The writers running the simulation are just getting lazy.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

More evidence that this Universe is a simulation that is breaking down. I mean…..Dalton Clodfelter? The writers running the simulation are just getting lazy.

He seems like a parody character and yet appears to be real, if the term actually applies…

Our ‘reality’ being a parody of an actual reality would explain so much. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Putting one’s Nation First, can only lead to the strengthening of all Nations. When America is strong and prosperous, we are able, and also will also help others countries, who share our own values. Christian Nationalism, promotes Christian values, which is never a bad thing. Putting Faith, Family, and fidelity to one’s Nation first, is a win, win, for all the Nations who have prospered the entire western would world, for countless generations. It is a policy that even allows us to recognize that which is evil, and then makes U.S. willing to fight and die to correct the evil that finds its was into our world. As a former soldier in the United States Army, our (my) first act is to pledge our very lives, into putting America First, and then practice that form of Nationalism throughout our years of service. 
 

In short, we make that pledge on the very first day of our service, and it is a pledge from which we can never be released from obeying. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[The Nehor]

Just now, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Putting one’s Nation First, can only lead to the strengthening of all Nations. When America is strong and prosperous, we are able, and also will also help others countries, who share our own values. Christian Nationalism, promotes Christian values, which is never a bad thing. Putting Faith, Family, and fidelity to one’s Nation first, is a win, win, for all the Nations who have prospered the entire western would world, for countless generations. It is a policy that even allows us to recognize that which is evil, and then makes U.S. willing to fight and die to correct the evil that finds its was into our world. As a former soldier in the United States Army, our (my) first act is to pledge our very lives, into putting America First, and then practice that form of Nationalism throughout our years of service. 

“America First” was literally the slogan and the party name of domestic fascists who wanted to keep the US out of the war against Hitler because they liked fascism.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“America First” was literally the slogan and the party name of domestic fascists who wanted to keep the US out of the war against Hitler because they liked fascism.

No, that was more like “America Only”, and being unwilling to fight and die for our ideals as a Sovereign Nation. It was selfish, and cowardly. Since you seem to misunderstand, or mistake what the term means. Which Nation should each citizen put first. After all, according to scripture, “Charity begins at home”. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

No, that was more like “America Only”, and being unwilling to fight and die for our ideals as a Sovereign Nation. It was selfish, and cowardly. Since you seem to misunderstand, or mistake what the term means. Which Nation should each citizen put first. After all, according to scripture, “Charity begins at home”. 

No, it was literally the “America First Committee” and late the “America First Party”. They were Nazi sympathizers. Reusing the slogan “America First” in the present day was NOT an accident. It was a dog whistle to fascists.

Edited September 15, 2022 by The Nehor

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it was literally the “America First Committee” and late the “America First Party”. They were Nazi sympathizers. Reusing the slogan “America First” in the present day was NOT an accident. It was a dog whistle to fascists.

If they were Nazi sympathizers, then there allegiance was to German hating Jews, because they did not want to oppose them, and were secretly wishing for a German expansion and victory. No matter what they called themselves, it was not “America First”. Also, what does this have to do with today, or the original post, and this thread? Unless you are trying to imply, that those calling for all here to be, “America First”, are somehow Nazi sympathetic of anti-semites, and in favor of any such peoples, if so you are way off the mark. My very important question, is how did you made this quantum-leap, believing “America First” citizens today are somehow “anti-semites, or back such Governments, who oppose the freedom enjoyed by we the America People”. If you seeking to make that leap, or to link us with such evil, of those type of people, from a movement 85-90 years ago, to today’s beliefs of, “America First/Christian movements now? I don’t know what map you seem to be using. Again, as a former member of the Armed Forces” (A Sargent in the Army), on day one, like all who serve, I had to bear allegiance to the United States Constitution. Meaning, I swore a solemn oath from which I will, not ever be released from. Also, as a Police Officer for 23 years, I also had to pledge, each year when issued a new I.D., are take the oath, to uphold the United States Constitution, the State of Georgia’s Constitution, and the Laws and Ordinations, of the City of Atlanta. As a Police Officer, I did to to maintain Police Powers, for the City and State. However the oath I pledged much of the same oath I did when entering entering the Army. An oath, that remains in force, for the rest of my life! Meaning, I must protect the Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic”, for as long as I may live. Simply put, to put “America First”, until the day I die. Something I took seriously at 19 years of age, even when stationed within 100 yards from Russian Soldiers, carrying, and sometimes pointing AK-47’s at me, and my men. Like it or not, should anyone, threaten your safety, across a border, or within our borders, I will do all I an able, including giving my life, so that you or anyone else can sleep well this night, or any other. I would even give my life, for someone who could, or would laugh at the idea of my protection, or the idea that I still take that oath seriously. I don’t know, if you have ever served in uniform, or taken such an oath, or would even take such and oath, believing it to you very core. But, it matters not, even if you have nothing but contempt for such ideas, I would still serve you as an American, or as my brother in the Gospel. Your life means very much to me, (again), be it a citizen, or a brother. If needed, I would lay that life down for you, if you were in danger. Anyway, Gid bless you, my dear brother, and my citizen, who rest also under the “Flaf that I Love”. 
 

Your humble servant and brother, 

Bill Lee 

At least my wife and I will be buried in a “Veterans Memorial Cemetery”. A well kept, and very quiet place to be laid to rest”. Along with so many others who have taken the same oath as myself. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

If they were Nazi sympathizers, then there allegiance was to German hating Jews, because they did not want to oppose them, and were secretly wishing for a German expansion and victory. No matter what they called themselves, it was not “America First”. Also, what does this have to do with today, or the original post, and this thread? Unless you are trying to imply, that those calling for all here to be, “America First”, are somehow Nazi sympathetic of anti-semites, and in favor of any such peoples, if so you are way off the mark. My very important question, is how did you made this quantum-leap, believing “America First” citizens today are somehow “anti-semites, or back such Governments, who oppose the freedom enjoyed by we the America People”. If you seeking to make that leap, or to link us with such evil, of those type of people, from a movement 85-90 years ago, to today’s beliefs of, “America First/Christian movements now? I don’t know what map you seem to be using. Again, as a former member of the Armed Forces” (A Sargent in the Army), on day one, like all who serve, I had to bear allegiance to the United States Constitution. Meaning, I swore a solemn oath from which I will, not ever be released from. Also, as a Police Officer for 23 years, I also had to pledge, each year when issued a new I.D., are take the oath, to uphold the United States Constitution, the State of Georgia’s Constitution, and the Laws and Ordinations, of the City of Atlanta. As a Police Officer, I did to to maintain Police Powers, for the City and State. However the oath I pledged much of the same oath I did when entering entering the Army. An oath, that remains in force, for the rest of my life! Meaning, I must protect the Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic”, for as long as I may live. Simply put, to put “America First”, until the day I die. Something I took seriously at 19 years of age, even when stationed within 100 yards from Russian Soldiers, carrying, and sometimes pointing AK-47’s at me, and my men. Like it or not, should anyone, threaten your safety, across a border, or within our borders, I will do all I an able, including giving my life, so that you or anyone else can sleep well this night, or any other. I would even give my life, for someone who could, or would laugh at the idea of my protection, or the idea that I still take that oath seriously. I don’t know, if you have ever served in uniform, or taken such an oath, or would even take such and oath, believing it to you very core. But, it matters not, even if you have nothing but contempt for such ideas, I would still serve you as an American, or as my brother in the Gospel. Your life means very much to me, (again), be it a citizen, or a brother. If needed, I would lay that life down for you, if you were in danger. Anyway, Gid bless you, my dear brother, and my citizen, who rest also under the “Flaf that I Love”. 
 

Your humble servant and brother, 

Bill Lee 

The people who chose the “America First” slogan knew the history. They knew it was linked to fascism and Nazis. They used it anyways. Deliberately. The people who first started using the slogan have ties to old KKK and neo-Nazi groups. This isn’t a case of “Ooops, accidentally picked the slogan of fascists.” This is a case of doing that to signal to closet fascists that they are welcome to affiliate with this group and they can and do. Those drawn to this organization should ask themselves why the group they belong to is okay with appealing to fascists.

"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism.'" -Halford E. Luccock (1936)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The people who chose the “America First” slogan knew the history. They knew it was linked to fascism and Nazis. They used it anyways. Deliberately. The people who first started using the slogan have ties to old KKK and neo-Nazi groups. This isn’t a case of “Ooops, accidentally picked the slogan of fascists.” This is a case of doing that to signal to closet fascists that they are welcome to affiliate with this group and they can and do. Those drawn to this organization should ask themselves why the group they belong to is okay with appealing to fascists.

"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism.'" -Halford E. Luccock (1936)

Much of the slogans attributed to those who supported President Trump, where the ideas and slogans used by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and others. Those who adopted many slogans only knew they had once worked, and believed they would work again. They did not do a deep dive into history that predated WWII, in an effort to overtly signal their deeply rooted anti-Semitic. Nor, if they knew all of the history that they adopted, they certainly did not hold press conferences to announce this history to the world. Few, take the time to do a deep dive into the deep into the pool, in an attempt to decide if this is why they chose these slogans. I grew up in Georgia, born in 1957, and in my entire life only know one overtly member of the KKK. Any others who would proclaim themselves as Klan members at rallies, made very clear their complete lack of education. Therefore, the idea that the KKK, where educated, even above the 5th Grade, would be somewhere in fantasyland. There were times in the City of Atlanta, where the Klan would plan a march, and at times Police Officers would be tasks with providing protection, so they would no be beaten to death. Then only 5-10 people would show-up, where their complete lake of education was on display. Most had the vocabulary of a 10 year old at best. As they rambled on and on about nonsense, and a complete lack of anything historical.

Today, for anyone using the term, “American First”, is not an attempt to connect themselves to a pre-WWII history, or an anti-Semitic, none Christian Worldview. It is to proclaim their allegiance to their own Country. You are not suggesting somehow that they proclaim their allegiance to some other Nation. I would expect that someone from New Zealand, to pledge allegiance to Australia, or someone from Australia using the term, “America First”, or Americans adopting the phrase, “Great Britain First”.
 

In short, what is your point, or your goal? Is it to educate, or is it your dislike for those who love America, “warts and all”?     

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Much of the slogans attributed to those who supported President Trump, where the ideas and slogans used by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and others. Those who adopted many slogans only knew they had once worked, and believed they would work again. They did not do a deep dive into history that predated WWII, in an effort to overtly signal their deeply rooted anti-Semitic. Nor, if they knew all of the history that they adopted, they certainly did not hold press conferences to announce this history to the world. Few, take the time to do a deep dive into the deep into the pool, in an attempt to decide if this is why they chose these slogans. I grew up in Georgia, born in 1957, and in my entire life only know one overtly member of the KKK. Any others who would proclaim themselves as Klan members at rallies, made very clear their complete lack of education. Therefore, the idea that the KKK, where educated, even above the 5th Grade, would be somewhere in fantasyland. There were times in the City of Atlanta, where the Klan would plan a march, and at times Police Officers would be tasks with providing protection, so they would no be beaten to death. Then only 5-10 people would show-up, where their complete lake of education was on display. Most had the vocabulary of a 10 year old at best. As they rambled on and on about nonsense, and a complete lack of anything historical.

Today, for anyone using the term, “American First”, is not an attempt to connect themselves to a pre-WWII history, or an anti-Semitic, none Christian Worldview. It is to proclaim their allegiance to their own Country. You are not suggesting somehow that they proclaim their allegiance to some other Nation. I would expect that someone from New Zealand, to pledge allegiance to Australia, or someone from Australia using the term, “America First”, or Americans adopting the phrase, “Great Britain First”.
 

In short, what is your point, or your goal? Is it to educate, or is it your dislike for those who love America, “warts and all”?     

They didn’t have to do a deep dive into history. They could just type “America First” into Google. People when they started using it immediately told them that it was tied to fascism. They kept using it. Your theory seems to rely on the people using the slogan now also being idiots with the vocabulary of a ten year old. You ran into the morons of the white nationalist movement. The smart ones weren’t hanging out in the streets.

My goal is to say we have a fascism problem and we need to (metaphorically and literally) punch more Nazis or we won’t have a liberal democracy for much longer.

[Tacenda]

The other day while sub'g in an elementary school I saw above the teacher's desk a small poster with information about the pledge of allegiance and it read not to force students to stand for the pledge etc. And they could choose to do so, I had never seen it in all the years I've sub'd taught. I was glad I hadn't ever forced a student but I might have wanted the class to follow the "star student" or teacher's helper when they would say "please stand for the pledge".  

I think this is a great thing! I hope that we would never force this or hope the country wouldn't rule with an iron fist.