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

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm. I would have thought you would have been better-read about the case than this. The case wasn't about pre-game prayers, especially ones mandated by a government body, and had nothing to do with reintroduction of religious control in government functions. <-- Unless one believes that any private religious observance is unconstitutional.

For a number of years, an assistant coach at a public high school would have a private prayer at the 50-yard line after football games. He was often joined by student athletes, who would surround him, heads bowed, at the field’s midway mark. Someone decided they didn't like this, and reported him to the school district. The SD, in an apparent concern over state establishment of religion, warned him not to pray if it would involve students. There was some tussle over whether he was obeying the district's orders (the students who joined him were voluntarily doing so on their own initiative), and they fired him. He took this to court, and it ended up with SCOTUS.

Essentially, the court's decision had these key take-aways:

1. The school district seemed to be under the mistaken impression that it had to scrub any private religious expression from the public square.
2. Bremerton School District had focused on suppressing religious expression, rather than on Free Exercise and pluralism, and Justice Gorsuch hinted as much.
3. The Founders did not countenance such a limited understanding of religious exercise, and the Court’s long-standing precedents don’t support it.

The school district was concerned that by his private prayers at the 50-yard line that this coach was violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. But the court ruled that his quiet prayers after school football games — while visible to others — in no way represented a government establishment or endorsement of religion.

Justice Gorsuch wrote: "Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks. Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided. Both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s. Nor does a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike."

I know a little about establishment of religion. I spent 2 years in a Canadian high school in 1967-69. Every morning O Canada was played over the classroom annunciators while we sat in homeroom, and at the conclusion of the song, a pupil who had volunteered to do so recited the Lord's Prayer. When my family moved to England, again I was subjected to religion in public school. We had a weekly assembly in my school and we not only sang hymns (Church of England hymns, but some of them could be found in the LDS hymnbook, too), but we got little recited prayer, too. The annual Speech Day included an actual C of E clergyman who came to give a sermon. And then there were the daily lunchtimes, when the various "houses" would sit down to eat a hot lunch prepared by the school kitchen (all ages, from 12 to 18), before anyone would begin eating we always had someone say "grace", which in this case was the standard C of E "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful." It was great fun, especially after I got appointed to be the House Captain and I assigned who among the older boys would say this little "prayerlet" before the meal -- it was fun especially since when I assigned myself into the rotation I would say a "proper" blessing on the food -- at first I got peculiar looks, but eventually they got used to it. Perhaps this totally destroyed the value of the education we received at these schools.

I am sure both the Canadian and English schools no longer do this. My English stepson says that only happens now in the schools operated by the Church of England.

 

 

I’m familiar with the decision, and I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I don’t see how a prayer by a school employee on school property with students would be either private or devoid of social pressure. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SkyRock said:

The entire concept of "Christian nationalism" is an attempt to exclude traditional Americanism from civic life and tie it to White Supremacy.  It has clearly been an organized campaign and an effort to make good people question their beliefs. 

America 50 years ago was 85% or so white and 90% or so Christian.  It was clearly a nation of Christian Englishmen and most people assimilated into the WASP culture and values. 

It isn't a secret that there have been those who have attempted to change America into an "idea" and not a place,  something that is the birthright of the entire world.   

Samuel Huntington was correct that we were losing, even 25 years ago, the grand organizing forces of the country.   Robert Putnam found that increasing diversity led to lower civic virtue and social trust.

The idea of the Melting Pot is now "racist".  And straight white men are the only acceptable group to discriminate against today.  It doesn't matter about death rates, suicide rates,  or anything else. 

In short, "Christian nationalism" is a bogeyman scare tactic.  Those hyping the issue are just creating a new "other" to be attacked, in an effort to unify their coalition against the tradition of the country.

 

 

[Amulek]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes.  I don't understand your reluctance on this.  Do you not believe there is a nationalist movement in America? 

I'm not talking about nationalism in general - I'm talking about Christian Nationalism, vis a vis the OP.

And no, I don't believe Christian Nationalists have any meaningful power in America, nor do I believe that there is any real threat from Christian Nationalists ever taking over our government.

 

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't vote?

Oh, I vote, it's just that I vote Libertarian - which, as I said previously, means that I have (functionally) given power to nobody for decades now.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SkyRock said:

The entire concept of "Christian nationalism" is an attempt to exclude traditional Americanism from civic life and tie it to White Supremacy.  It has clearly been an organized campaign and an effort to make good people question their beliefs. 

America 50 years ago was 85% or so white and 90% or so Christian.  It was clearly a nation of Christian Englishmen and most people assimilated into the WASP culture and values. 

It isn't a secret that there have been those who have attempted to change America into an "idea" and not a place,  something that is the birthright of the entire world.   

Samuel Huntington was correct that we were losing, even 25 years ago, the grand organizing forces of the country.   Robert Putnam found that increasing diversity led to lower civic virtue and social trust.

The idea of the Melting Pot is now "racist".  And straight white men are the only acceptable group to discriminate against today.  It doesn't matter about death rates, suicide rates,  or anything else. 

In short, "Christian nationalism" is a bogeyman scare tactic.  Those hyping the issue are just creating a new "other" to be attacked, in an effort to unify their coalition against the tradition of the country.

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Are you suggesting that "Christian nationalism" doesn't really exist - and if it does it is a made up term the left uses to attack/exclude white Christian Americans? 

Quote

we should be Christian nationalists.

- Marjorie Taylor Greene

It appears to exist to me, and it appears that it is not a made up term made up by the left.  

What are your thoughts on nationalism in general?  What do you think of the quotes general conference on nationalism? 

Edited August 1, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm. I would have thought you would have been better-read about the case than this. The case wasn't about pre-game prayers, especially ones mandated by a government body, and had nothing to do with reintroduction of religious control in government functions. <-- Unless one believes that any private religious observance is unconstitutional.

For a number of years, an assistant coach at a public high school would have a private prayer at the 50-yard line after football games. He was often joined by student athletes, who would surround him, heads bowed, at the field’s midway mark. Someone decided they didn't like this, and reported him to the school district. The SD, in an apparent concern over state establishment of religion, warned him not to pray if it would involve students. There was some tussle over whether he was obeying the district's orders (the students who joined him were voluntarily doing so on their own initiative), and they fired him. He took this to court, and it ended up with SCOTUS.

Essentially, the court's decision had these key take-aways:

1. The school district seemed to be under the mistaken impression that it had to scrub any private religious expression from the public square.
2. Bremerton School District had focused on suppressing religious expression, rather than on Free Exercise and pluralism, and Justice Gorsuch hinted as much.
3. The Founders did not countenance such a limited understanding of religious exercise, and the Court’s long-standing precedents don’t support it.

The school district was concerned that by his private prayers at the 50-yard line that this coach was violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. But the court ruled that his quiet prayers after school football games — while visible to others — in no way represented a government establishment or endorsement of religion.

Justice Gorsuch wrote: "Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks. Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided. Both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s. Nor does a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike."

I know a little about establishment of religion. I spent 2 years in a Canadian high school in 1967-69. Every morning O Canada was played over the classroom annunciators while we sat in homeroom, and at the conclusion of the song, a pupil who had volunteered to do so recited the Lord's Prayer. When my family moved to England, again I was subjected to religion in public school. We had a weekly assembly in my school and we not only sang hymns (Church of England hymns, but some of them could be found in the LDS hymnbook, too), but we got little recited prayer, too. The annual Speech Day included an actual C of E clergyman who came to give a sermon. And then there were the daily lunchtimes, when the various "houses" would sit down to eat a hot lunch prepared by the school kitchen (all ages, from 12 to 18), before anyone would begin eating we always had someone say "grace", which in this case was the standard C of E "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful." It was great fun, especially after I got appointed to be the House Captain and I assigned who among the older boys would say this little "prayerlet" before the meal -- it was fun especially since when I assigned myself into the rotation I would say a "proper" blessing on the food -- at first I got peculiar looks, but eventually they got used to it. Perhaps this totally destroyed the value of the education we received at these schools.

I am sure both the Canadian and English schools no longer do this. My English stepson says that only happens now in the schools operated by the Church of England.

 

 

When we lived in Brisbane, our high schools dedicated one hour on Wednesday afternoons to religious education. Students were required to attend, but class times were open to any religious organization that was willing to provide instructors, including atheists. Students chose which to attend and were not limited to just one. There were Catholic priests and nuns, Buddhists, Protestant ministers, LDS missionaries, and more. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, 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

There is no decent place in the USA for any religions nationalism.  None. 0. Nada.  Anyone who pushes a religious nationalism should be shut down immediately.  Like it or not we do have a secular constitution where there is no state religion. There is freedom to worship however one wants or not to at all and that is a wonderful thing.  Any religious person should run away faster than non believers from some religious nationalism. Because if we have some sort of religious nationalism other religious  beliefs that do not conform will certainly suffer.  Nad Latter-day Saints should want to run away fast from so called Christian Nationalism.

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Those hyping the issue are just creating a new "other" to be attacked, in an effort to unify their coalition against the tradition of the country.

What exactly is the "tradition of the country"?

Hint, good old traditional American Christians have never accepted Mormonism and there little chance we're going to be invited to their parades

[Kenngo1969]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When we lived in Brisbane, our high schools dedicated one hour on Wednesday afternoons to religious education. Students were required to attend, but class times were open to any religious organization that was willing to provide instructors, including atheists. Students chose which to attend and were not limited to just one. There were Catholic priests and nuns, Buddhists, Protestant ministers, LDS missionaries, and more. 

You lived in Brisbane?!   

You're even better traveled than I thought, and I never thought you weren't well traveled in the first place!

[Bernard Gui]

There are numerous nationalistic groups in the US, not just Christian. Should we be concerned about those, too?

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You lived in Brisbane?!   

You're even better traveled than I thought, and I never thought you weren't well traveled in the first place!

We did a one-year teacher exchange there in 1990. Perhaps the best thing we did for our family. We still experience the benefits after 30 years. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are numerous nationalistic groups in the US, not just Christian. Should we be concerned about those, too?

Depends on what their goal is.

The National Society for the Prevention of Birds…….probably harmless loons

National Socialist: Punch them

Proud Boy: Punch them

America First: Punch them all

Edited August 2, 2022 by The Nehor

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Depends on what their goal is.

National Socialist: Punch them

Proud Boy: Punch them

Yes, among others of different persuasions. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, among others of different persuasions. 

Ku Klux Klan: Punch

New Black Panther Party: Punch

Identity Evropa: Punch and Wedgie

Constitution Party: Humiliate and Punch

League of the South: Punch, arrest as traitors, and then summon General Sherman to burn Atlanta again

AtomWaffen Division: Beat the hell out of them, humiliate them, and encourage them to honor their Fuhrer’s final act with the admonition to “Go and do likewise.”

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m familiar with the decision, and I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I don’t see how a prayer by a school employee on school property with students would be either private or devoid of social pressure. 

It is not and if you read the dissenting opinion they explain with pictures how “private” that prayer was not.

I don’t think the case was a big deal but I think the school was justified in firing him.

He started praying privately on the field and had prayers in the locker room. The school board was worried about legal complication and implicit coercion of students. They asked him to pray after leaving with any students who wished to do so and offered a location for it and there were other accommodation offers. The coach went on Facebook and said he was likely getting fired.

It got internet famous and the press was there for the next prayer and it was a fiasco. Zealous spectators rushed the field to join the prayer and knocked over several members of the marching band and many started spewing profanity at the head coach who was (rightly or not) blamed for the persecution. The head coach reported he was worried about being attacked or shot. After two more similar fiascos the board put him on paid leave for violating school policies and endangering students. Then they chose not to renew his contract.

Later the coach sued. The school board won in every lower court. The Supreme Court ruled differently.

"To the degree the court portrays petitioner Joseph Kennedy’s prayers as private and quiet, it misconstrues the facts." - Justice Sotomeyer

I agree with that statement. This wasn’t a private thing. It was public and there is a general prohibition on school officials leading students in prayers so the school district was in compliance with previous Supreme Court rulings. It is hard to know how coercive it may have felt to athletes. The decision is pretty narrow and won’t affect much.

Only party I feel contempt for are the good Christians performatively running onto the field after the game directly through students and hurling profanity at someone that seems to have been uninvolved in the dispute so they can call upon their God (presumably some pagan deity of berserkers or warfare).

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

"To the degree the court portrays petitioner Joseph Kennedy’s prayers as private and quiet, it misconstrues the facts." - Justice Sotomeyer

I agree with that statement. This wasn’t a private thing. It was public and there is a general prohibition on school officials leading students in prayers so the school district was in compliance with previous Supreme Court rulings. It is hard to know how coercive it may have felt to athletes. The decision is pretty narrow and won’t affect much.

I think the words "private" and "public" are doing double duty here and leading us down a path of misunderstanding and equivocation.

Private vs Public can mean "in solitude" vs "out in the open." But the pair of words can also mean "citizen initiated" vs "government initiated." We talk of private sector jobs vs public sector jobs all the time; the difference between the two is not that one type of job is out in the open and the other type of job is done in seclusion.

When acting in the capacity of a private individual, a person can do many acts out in public. A person can thus offer a private prayer in a very public setting.

This prayer was private, in the sense that it was initiated by the coach in his capacity as a town resident. It was not a public prayer because it was not offered in his capacity as a school employee. A fine line, indeed, and one that may not have been immediately apparent to onlookers or school officials.

But it's a line that does exisit. All public employees take off their public employee hats at some point, even if its just at the end of the day. And when they do, everything they do, even very public prayers, are by definition private acts.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[SkyRock]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I need to double check….you are serious about this claim?  Or are you doing a parody or something?

If you are serious, are you aware of the huge influx of Scandinavians into Utah to join Zion (they were 45,000 in 1862 according to one church leader and still growing, Swedes alone got up to almost 5% of the state at one time).  They settled in communities often together as stalwart saints and some never did get the hang of English, but published church and civic news in their native language and even had church meetings in Swedish, Danish, etc.  

Were they somehow not as American in your view as the Saints that came from England?

The majority of the early Saints came from England.  The Scandinavian Saints did largely integrate into the English culture of Utah.  They had some unique aspects, but they were only 5% of the state, as you said. 

Plus England had a long history connected to Scandinavia.  Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians had invaded England numerous times prior to the Norman invasion and the Normans were Scandinavians with a few generations in France.  English culture is highly connected to Scandinavia, as well as the Dutch.

This actually proves the point.

[SkyRock]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Are you suggesting that "Christian nationalism" doesn't really exist - and if it does it is a made up term the left uses to attack/exclude white Christian Americans? 

It appears to exist to me, and it appears that it is not a made up term made up by the left.  

What are your thoughts on nationalism in general?  What do you think of the quotes general conference on nationalism? 

What does the Title of Liberty proclaim?  If someone today held to the principles expressed in the Title of Liberty would you call them "Christian nationalist"?

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

What does the Title of Liberty proclaim?  If someone today held to the principles expressed in the Title of Liberty would you call them "Christian nationalist"?

It proclaims religious liberty.  Religious liberty is not the same as Christian nationalism.  I hold to the principles of the title of liberty.  I am no Christian nationalist, if that answers your question.

I noticed that you never answered my question.  Do you intend to?

The Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, might rub Christian nationalists the wrong way.

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, SkyRock said:

What does the Title of Liberty proclaim?  If someone today held to the principles expressed in the Title of Liberty would you call them "Christian nationalist"?

Nope. The Title of Liberty was about a defense of religious freedom, freedom in general, and the defense of their loved ones.

Christian Nationalists want to impose their religion on others. It is opposed to the gospel and to the Constitution.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

This prayer was private, in the sense that it was initiated by the coach in his capacity as a town resident. It was not a public prayer because it was not offered in his capacity as a school employee. A fine line, indeed, and one that may not have been immediately apparent to onlookers or school officials.

But it's a line that does exisit. All public employees take off their public employee hats at some point, even if its just at the end of the day. And when they do, everything they do, even very public prayers, are by definition private acts.

This is ridiculous. He initiated the prayer while on the field immediately following a game that he was involved in as a coach and most of those who joined him were those under his “authority” (players). The idea that this prayer was offered outside of that is a stretch beyond crazy. This is the equivalent of saying that when the final school bell rings at the end of the day teachers are immediately private citizens and if they go to the front of the school and offer sacrifices to Baal that would be a “private act” and if students joined them that would be their choice.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The majority of the early Saints came from England.  The Scandinavian Saints did largely integrate into the English culture of Utah.  They had some unique aspects, but they were only 5% of the state, as you said. 

Plus England had a long history connected to Scandinavia.  Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians had invaded England numerous times prior to the Norman invasion and the Normans were Scandinavians with a few generations in France.  English culture is highly connected to Scandinavia, as well as the Dutch.

This actually proves the point.

Your point that America is all of English descent and we must preserve an ethnostate and a specific religion? That would bring you into conformity with the Constitution…

.……of the Confederacy. They added a clause to their constitution invoking God. And their glorious constitution made it quite clear that men are not created equal, that there are a favored people. Those white English people you want to favor.

The United States was not founded on “blood and soil” like the old nations of Europe. Sacrificing that is a betrayal of the best ideals of the United States. At the point we toss those we might as well just burn the Constitution and call it a day.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is ridiculous. He initiated the prayer while on the field immediately following a game that he was involved in as a coach and most of those who joined him were those under his “authority” (players). The idea that this prayer was offered outside of that is a stretch beyond crazy. This is the equivalent of saying that when the final school bell rings at the end of the day teachers are immediately private citizens and if they go to the front of the school and offer sacrifices to Baal that would be a “private act” and if students joined them that would be their choice.

Exactly. By this logic, a school principal could lead prayer as long as it ended before the bell rang in the morning. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The majority of the early Saints came from England.  The Scandinavian Saints did largely integrate into the English culture of Utah.  They had some unique aspects, but they were only 5% of the state, as you said. 

Plus England had a long history connected to Scandinavia.  Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians had invaded England numerous times prior to the Norman invasion and the Normans were Scandinavians with a few generations in France.  English culture is highly connected to Scandinavia, as well as the Dutch.

This actually proves the point.

Plus Scandinavians are white. Oops. Was I not supposed to say that part?

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Plus Scandinavians are white. Oops. Was I not supposed to say that part?

He already said that when he claimed that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture is American culture. If nothing else, he's given us a pretty good exposition of White Christian nationalism.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The entire concept of "Christian nationalism" is an attempt to exclude traditional Americanism from civic life and tie it to White Supremacy.  It has clearly been an organized campaign and an effort to make good people question their beliefs. 

America 50 years ago was 85% or so white and 90% or so Christian.  It was clearly a nation of Christian Englishmen and most people assimilated into the WASP culture and values. 

It isn't a secret that there have been those who have attempted to change America into an "idea" and not a place,  something that is the birthright of the entire world.   

Samuel Huntington was correct that we were losing, even 25 years ago, the grand organizing forces of the country.   Robert Putnam found that increasing diversity led to lower civic virtue and social trust.

The idea of the Melting Pot is now "racist".  And straight white men are the only acceptable group to discriminate against today.  It doesn't matter about death rates, suicide rates,  or anything else. 

In short, "Christian nationalism" is a bogeyman scare tactic.  Those hyping the issue are just creating a new "other" to be attacked, in an effort to unify their coalition against the tradition of the country.

When you have two congresswomen touting Christian Nationalism pubically (and others as well) it seems a threat.  When one, who just won her primary, says that the government should get its direction from the church that is concerning. When she promotes doing away with the separation clause I do worry. And more than a few on the right eat this stuff up.