Jump to content

Let’s Analyze the Christian Nationalist’s Officially Stated Positions


Recommended Posts

With all the recent discussion on this board concerning the Christian Nationalists, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to discuss each of the group’s 10 official mission statement positions, and do so methodically, one position at a time.

I found the group’s 10 foundational beliefs on the official Christian Nationalist Alliance website, and my hope is that by focusing like a laser on what the Christian Nationalists actually say they believe, rather than on what people think they believe, we’ll be able to wade through each succeeding belief on the ist without having to resort to presumptions or surmisings about what these people believe.

I sincerely hope all participants will be willing to fairly consider each individual position on the list, and then discuss each position rationally so that we don’t end up meandering into impertinent areas of discussion not centered on each of the 10 listed individual beliefs as they come up in succession. After the discussion on the first official position winds down, my plan is to start a new thread that’s solely focused on the next Christian Nationalist belief on the list, and continue on In this manner until all 10 positions have been thoroughly digested and covered. If anyone attempts to hijack the discussion by jumping ahead to any of the other official Christian Nationalist beliefs before we get to them, I’ll shut down the discussion.

What follows is the Christian Nationalist Alliance’s first officially held position. After reading and considering this first  position, offer up your opinions as to whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing for an organization that’s focused on the spiritual foundations of this nation to adhere to this first listed principle?

“Our Positions:

The Christian Nationalist Alliance affirms the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of man.”

 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

With all the recent discussion on this board concerning the Christian Nationalists, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to discuss each of the group’s 10 official mission statement positions, and do so methodically, one position at a time.

I just had a look at the website and read all ten position statements. I see no way that this 'discussion' can go well.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I just had a look at the website and read all ten position statements. I see no way that this 'discussion' can go well.

Point 1 was ok. But you're right, I'm not sure any pro-theocracy, anti-abortion, capitalistic, gun loving, stop the gays, immigrants, and Muslims, list of dot points is going to end up going in a sensible direction.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I just had a look at the website and read all ten position statements. I see no way that this 'discussion' can go well.

There’s a better chance of this thread going well if we all do as I implored we should do in the original post, and that is to systematically discuss each of the Christian Nationalist’s 10 mission positions thoroughly, and do so one one position at a time. Unfortunately, In an act of the kind of callous disrespect that I’ve come to expect from the aptly named Nehor (see below), he does exactly what I politely and respectfully requested that this thread’s participants not do, and that is to jump the gun and attempt to discus all the mission statement positions at once. And unless he’s willing to thoroughly discus each point in order, I’m going to totally ignore him and only dialogue with those who are willing to discuss each of the 10 positions in numerical order.

Now with regard to Christian Nationalist position 1: I’m sure you realize that there are a great many citizens of the United States who would say that position 1 is a terrible position to hold because they believe government and religion should have absolutely nothing at all to do with each other. In fact, there are a great many among them who would say that position 1 is prima facie evidence that the Christian Nationalists are white supremacists because Christianity is a largely European white supremacist religion. In this regard, I believe  the following General Conference address by President Marion G. Romney to be something that would undoubtedly provoke intense outrage among those who believe Christianity and government should have nothing to do with each other. In fact, there’s no doubt in my mind that these people would regard President Romney’s address to be nothing less than “dangerous” Christian Nationalist propaganda.

I hope that you and the other participants will read what President Romney has to say, and then explain how his remarks should not be seen as an early example of prototypical Christian Nationalism, i.e. that this nation cannot prosper and remain free without serving Jesus Christ, the God of this land, in righteousness. Here is the address… https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/09/americas-promise?lang=eng

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

With all the recent discussion on this board concerning the Christian Nationalists, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to discuss each of the group’s 10 official mission statement positions, and do so methodically, one position at a time.

I found the group’s 10 foundational beliefs on the official Christian Nationalist Alliance website, and my hope is that by focusing like a laser on what the Christian Nationalists actually say they believe, rather than on what people think they believe, we’ll be able to wade through each succeeding belief on the ist without having to resort to presumptions or surmisings about what these people believe.

I sincerely hope all participants will be willing to fairly consider each individual position on the list, and then discuss each position rationally so that we don’t end up meandering into impertinent areas of discussion not centered on each of the 10 listed individual beliefs as they come up in succession. After the discussion on the first official position winds down, my plan is to start a new thread that’s solely focused on the next Christian Nationalist belief on the list, and continue on In this manner until all 10 positions have been thoroughly digested and covered. If anyone attempts to hijack the discussion by jumping ahead to any of the other official Christian Nationalist beliefs before we get to them, I’ll shut down the discussion.

What follows is the Christian Nationalist Alliance’s first officially held position. After reading and considering this first  position, offer up your opinions as to whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing for an organization that’s focused on the spiritual foundations of this nation to adhere to this first listed principle?

“Our Positions:

The Christian Nationalist Alliance affirms the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of man.”

 

As a foundational belief, I think people must acknowledge it as the cause and rationale of the owners' actions. Good-faith discussion should yield better understanding of the belief and how to address one's own actions with improved understanding. This would go two ways, understanding those who believe differently. Such discussion would include sharing facts and feelings supporting one's belief rather than tearing down another's belief, whether spiritual, traditional, secular or academic, etc. 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’m sure you realize that there are a great many citizens of the United States who would say that position 1 is a terrible position to hold because they believe government and religion should have absolutely nothing at all to do with each other

There is nothing inherent in the position 1 that has to do with actual governing, so I have my doubts anyone would actually say that is a terrible position to hold.  Can you please find examples demonstrating that people will actually complain about someone saying they believe in Christ (CFR) as an example of what you mean?  Because at this point if sounds like you are setting up a victim role for Christian Nationalists based on simply the fact they define themselves as Christian. 
 

Unless you are talking about more than just declaring a belief in Christ and if so, please clarify. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Our Positions:

The Christian Nationalist Alliance affirms the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of man.”

I think this is fine for a personal belief, but since the author of the Declaration of Independence explicitly rejected this, it’s hard to place this belief as somehow foundational to our nation. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

There’s a reason that you have to go to 1979 to find a talk that could work with a Christian national position, even if just as a proto verision. There’s a reason why more recent talks at times overtly go again Christian nationalist points. 
 

one can be in complete agreement with the first tenet while still taking a completely different view on politics and ideology that is still based on Jesus and moral stances. Christian nationalism takes Jesus and hijacks His message and values to fit their political bend and then put in question a Jesus believer who runs more socialist, green, civil rights oriented,  or desires a more compassionate system of governance and borders. Their message innately says “we know Jesus best and anyone who conflicts with our image of what God wants or means in the present obviously doesn’t know Jesus.” It takes in an innate superiority in what values, views, and practices should be heard and used when talking about Christ and Country. It doesn’t immediately lead to white supremacy. But it certainly cracks the door for it to seep in. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

This in a nut shell or better, a pearl shell ..beautiful pearl of wisdom. 😊

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

From Elder Romney’s talk quoting Peale:

“Now that she has moved on prayer and Bible reading in U.S. public schools,” the editorial continues, “her next targets, it appears, are tax-exemptions for churches, ousting chaplains from the armed services and omission of ‘God’ in courtroom oaths, on money and in the pledge of allegiance.” (Norman Vincent Peale, Deseret News and Telegram, 3 July 1964.)”

Almost 60 years later has there been a dent in tax exemptions? 
 

I am not sure having God’s name on money honors him given what uses so much money is put to.  Shows more superficial worship imo. 
 

The pledge of allegiance was written in 1885 without God in it and only had “under God” for ten years by the time Peale was complaining about it under attack. It was a novelty then.  Is there any sign that the US became more obedient and worshipful  to God in the time “under God” towards God while it has been in use?  I actually dislike the pledge because I see it as misplaced patriotism to put that allegiance, symbolic or not, in a piece of fabric. I remember hearing stories as a kid of soldiers sacrificing their lives in order to prevent a flag from falling in the hands of the enemy and thought what a waste of life when a new flag can be made, but not a new life. Symbols do have power, but they should never be mistaken for the real thing and elevating a symbol too often diminishes attention to actual needs Imo.  So if people want to say the pledge by their own choice I have no problem with it, but I am grateful it is no longer required in many places. 

Idols and all that...thanks Calm!!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I remember hearing stories as a kid of soldiers sacrificing their lives in order to prevent a flag from falling in the hands of the enemy and thought what a waste of life when a new flag can be made, but not a new life.

As an aside: before modern communications flags were a communication tool.  Soldiers had a regimental flag (called something else before regiments were invented) that they could look to to know where they were supposed to be.  In the heat of battle, where verbal communication was not possible, they could look to the movement of the flag to know where they should be.  In the case of a retreat they could look for their regimental flag to know where they should rally to.  Not having a visible rally point could lead to more lives being lost as soldiers scatter and lost the protection of being in a group.

While the flag was a source of unit pride, which is what we mostly hear and read about, there was a very practical reason for it on a pre-twentieth century battlefield.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

There’s a better chance of this thread going well if we all do as I implored we should do in the original post, and that is to systematically discuss each of the Christian Nationalist’s 10 mission positions thoroughly, and do so one one position at a time. Unfortunately, In an act of the kind of callous disrespect that I’ve come to expect from the aptly named Nehor (see below), he does exactly what I politely and respectfully requested that this thread’s participants not do, and that is to jump the gun and attempt to discus all the mission statement positions at once. And unless he’s willing to thoroughly discus each point in order, I’m going to totally ignore him and only dialogue with those who are willing to discuss each of the 10 positions in numerical order.

Glad to know I have developed a reputation and am fulfilling the expectations society has placed on me due to that reputation. Mom is gonna be so proud.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Now with regard to Christian Nationalist position 1: I’m sure you realize that there are a great many citizens of the United States who would say that position 1 is a terrible position to hold because they believe government and religion should have absolutely nothing at all to do with each other. In fact, there are a great many among them who would say that position 1 is prima facie evidence that the Christian Nationalists are white supremacists because Christianity is a largely European white supremacist religion. In this regard, I believe  the following General Conference address by President Marion G. Romney to be something that would undoubtedly provoke intense outrage among those who believe Christianity and government should have nothing to do with each other. In fact, there’s no doubt in my mind that these people would regard President Romney’s address to be nothing less than “dangerous” Christian Nationalist propaganda.

“Christianity is a largely European white supremacist religion”? What? First off the American concept of “white” is not a big thing in Europe. Racism there is very different. Try telling an Italian or a Greek that they are “white” and see what happens. This isn’t a European problem. They have their own problems. It is an explicitly American one where white people’s affiliation with Christianity is statistically linked to being more racist: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/racism-among-white-christians-higher-among-nonreligious-s-no-coincidence-ncna1235045

No, I wouldn’t consider President Romney’s Ensign message to be “dangerous” Christian Nationalist propaganda. He was reacting to the then-recent Supreme Court decision about prayers and bible reading in schools. President Romney wasn’t happy about this but his counsel was:

“Now, of course, we all believe and wholeheartedly support the separation of church and state; but we must not let this wresting of the First Amendment, nor communism, nor atheism, nor any other anti-Christ influence, weaken our conviction that Jesus Christ is the God of this land nor diminish our determination to obey his laws.”

He is saying don’t let this change weaken you. You are wresting his words to extract a meaning that isn’t there.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I hope that you and the other participants will read what President Romney has to say, and then explain how his remarks should not be seen as an early example of prototypical Christian Nationalism, i.e. that this nation cannot prosper and remain free without serving Jesus Christ, the God of this land, in righteousness. Here is the address… https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/09/americas-promise?lang=eng

The idea that President Romney was endorsing the specific branches of Christianity that are now actively seeking to establish Christian Nationalism is an unspoken assumption. I fully expect that if President Romney were alive today he would not be praising this current movement as one that will increase prosperity and help America remain free. You are falling into the trap of exalting dead prophets and ignoring the living ones. Surely if Christian Nationalism was a cure to what ails us the seers would be strongly endorsing it. They are not. You had to dig deep into the past and recast a dead prophet’s words about other matters to find support for a movement that didn’t really exist at all when this was written and only got steam in the last decade. This is akin to digging up a sermon from Brigham Young and using it to support investment in cryptocurrency.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

As an aside: before modern communications flags were a communication tool.  Soldiers had a regimental flag (called something else before regiments were invented) that they could look to to know where they were supposed to be.  In the heat of battle, where verbal communication was not possible, they could look to the movement of the flag to know where they should be.  In the case of a retreat they could look for their regimental flag to know where they should rally to.  Not having a visible rally point could lead to more lives being lost as soldiers scatter and lost the protection of being in a group.

While the flag was a source of unit pride, which is what we mostly hear and read about, there was a very practical reason for it on a pre-twentieth century battlefield.

I have no problem teaching solidiers the necessity for not letting a flag fall or be captured as that could costs lives (at least it used to). It is when the purpose for that is lost and the flag is turned into almost what Tacenda, imo, correctly identified as an idol, the whole having to burn a flag of it touches the ground, etc rituals, more important than people. The flag serves the needs of the citizens, not the citizens the flag. 
 

If they dropped the flag part from the pledge I would be much more comfortable about it, including having it in school, though I would hope if that happened the “under God” would also be dropped because the pledge is a communal act and there will be children who will not want to say that phrase or for whom it is nonsense and to me that disrespects God, forcing people to commit to him without desire or belief, and disrespects the person as they have a right to believe as they will. I don’t think it should be a daily or required act and knowing how kids may bully someone who refuses on principle to make the pledge, I am also comfortable with it not being included.   I can imagine a child angry at the government for putting a beloved parent in jail or perhaps their parent died in combat and as part of their grief they project their anger on the country.  Someone required to live in the US by circumstances they cannot control should not have to pledge allegiance to the country, though I would hope they don’t try to promote hate for it, sabotage the government, etc.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have no problem teaching solidiers the necessity for not letting a flag fall or be captured as that could costs lives (at least it used to). It is when the purpose for that is lost and the flag is turned into almost what Tacenda, imo, correctly identified as an idol, the whole having to burn a flag of it touches the ground, etc rituals, more important than people. The flag serves the needs of the citizens, not the citizens the flag. 
 

If they dropped the flag part from the pledge I would be much more comfortable about it, including having it in school, though I would hope if that happened the “under God” would also be dropped because the pledge is a communal act and there will be children who will not want to say that phrase or for whom it is nonsense and to me that disrespects God, forcing people to commit to him without desire or belief, and disrespects the person as they have a right to believe as they will. I don’t think it should be a daily or required act and knowing how kids may bully someone who refuses on principle to make the pledge, I am also comfortable with it not being included.   I can imagine a child angry at the government for putting a beloved parent in jail or perhaps their parent died in combat and as part of their grief they project their anger on the country.  Someone required to live in the US by circumstances they cannot control should not have to pledge allegiance to the country, though I would hope they don’t try to promote hate for it, sabotage the government, etc.

Meanwhile, in Texas our kids have to pledge to the state flag, also. I believe this started in the early 2000s, long after I went to school. 

EAFFAEFD-C7C7-40E9-9890-74AD0AC311F7.png

Link to comment
17 hours ago, teddyaware said:

“Our Positions:

The Christian Nationalist Alliance affirms the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of man.”

 

There is nothing wrong with this belief.  It is the idea that those who subscribe to this belief should receive a privileged position and treatment in the public square that is the problem.  Those who are not Christian would not receive full religious liberty. 

How would you like to be a Christian living under an Islamic Nationalist government, aka the Taliban?  Do you really not see the problem with religious nationalism???

For why many Christians view Christian nationalism as an evil, see here;

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Meanwhile, in Texas our kids have to pledge to the state flag, also. I believe this started in the early 2000s, long after I went to school. 

EAFFAEFD-C7C7-40E9-9890-74AD0AC311F7.png

I am grateful my later schooling was in states that did not require it. 

Link to comment

So, I consider myself a pretty good example of an uber-right wing Christian conservative, but after reading these 10 points, please don't ever call me a Christian nationalist.

I'm totally down with 1, 2, 4, and 9, and will happily defend them in debate or discussion, whenever I see the point of doing so.

3: I'm guessing my list of "our rights as Christians" wouldn't be the same list a CN would have.  Another way to put it, I can't think of a single right on my list, that would be exclusive to only Christians.

5: I've been watching the culture change the definitions of words for a decade now.  A good way to destroy a nation, is to erode the cohesiveness and universality of it's dominant language.  To me, that's a bigger issue, than arguing about what sex and gender mean.

6: I'll happily argue and defend this one as well, but I won't be going about removing rights of people who disagree.  Two exceptions: The tax code - I'm ok with favorable tax conditions for married couples.  And I'm totally for policies/laws that encourage two parent households for children.  Key word "encourage".  

7: Good, except it should include the concept that just laws can remove an individual's ability to own guns as a consequense of their actions.

8: I believe it.  Imma vote for it, and argue it.  I'm not going to link capitalism to Christianity.  I'll link it to the constitution and largely free markets as the holy trinity of economic perfection.

10: There are plenty of ideas that threaten my happy little constitution/nation/culture.  There's a percentage of Islamic thought that would qualify, and a percentage that wouldn't.  I'm ok with Dan Peterson's take on things - the vast majority of Islamic thought probably isn't a threat.  It's friggin' admirable to see folks living the 5 pillars.  Halal is a pretty admirable 
 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

5: I've been watching the culture change the definitions of words for a decade now.  A good way to destroy a nation, is to erode the cohesiveness and universality of it's dominant language.  To me, that's a bigger issue, than arguing about what sex and gender mean.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/gesellschaft/sprachen/die-sprachen---fakten-und-zahlen.html

“Switzerland has four language regions: German, French, Italian and Romansh.  The number of German, Italian and Romansh speakers is falling, while French speakers are increasing. Non-national languages are also gaining in importance. The two most widely spoken non-national languages are English and Portuguese. Multilingualism is an essential part of Switzerland's identity.”

Switzerland has been functioning this way for many centuries, I believe, but minimum almost two centuries.

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Our Positions:

The Christian Nationalist Alliance affirms the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of man.”

This is a fine thing for any Christian to affirm.  It is aso a fine thing for a citizen of the US to reject it and not worry about it being shoved down their throat as well asn not having it enshrined as part of the government.  You do realize most of these Christian Nationalists think you are a cult member and that you worship a false Jesus and false God. Be careful for what you wish for.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Teancum said:

This is a fine thing for any Christian to affirm.  It is aso a fine thing for a citizen of the US to reject it and not worry about it being shoved down their throat as well asn not having it enshrined as part of the government.  You do realize most of these Christian Nationalists think you are a cult member and that you worship a false Jesus and false God. Be careful for what you wish for.

You don’t believe in Jesus Christ and reject the Book of Mormon, a record that testifies if the modern-day American gentiles refuse to have faith in Jesus Christ and serve him in righteousness they will be utterly destroyed, so there’s not much point in having a discussion with someone who rejects everything the Latter-Day believe. I would prefer this discussion to be among believing Latter-Day Saint to determine, from the varied points of view of sincere believers, if the written tenets of Christian Nationalism are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You’re point of view is more like that of a barking dog on the sidelines of this debate.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...