Pew Research on Religious Nationalism Worldwide

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe it only shows your identity to you as it opens up for each person in their own profile if it’s like Facebook.  Why don’t you PM it to me and I can test if I can see your actual name or not.  Pretty sure you have told me it before, but since I think of people typically with their alias, I often forget actual names unless I use those as well…so chances are I will forget it again and even if I don’t, I won’t share it.   

You're the best! I'll do that!

[Calm]

This is a PS to my previous post.  While Christianity Today spoke favourably of patriotism, I personally am less inclined to straight out thumbs up approval as too often I have seen “I love my country” morph to “I love my country best” to “my country is the best” and the latter two are prone to leading the individual to diminishing and even ridiculing other countries because of the need to justify those feelings or in the last case prove the statement of fact made.  Call my view a more nuanced, reserved opinion about patriotism.

I thoroughly approve of “I love my country”, I support even gushing about it; but am mildly cautious about someone who feels the need to state “I love my country best” and am very concerned when I hear “my country is the best” if said in anything but a immediate way like telling someone “you’re the best” meaning at that moment rather than all the tIme and for everyone.  Can you imagine telling a neighbour that one’s own family is the best on the block and not in the way that means it’s the best just for you, but in comparison to everyone else as well?  Would your neighbours feel welcomed in your home or even wanted?  And what would the community be like if everyone had that attitude?

I would find a study comparing the version of patriotism with desire to travel to other countries as well as one’s opinion of one’s travels quite interesting.  Iow, would someone who holds the view “I love my country” enjoy their travels more than someone whose view is “my country is best”.  I can see someone with the “is best” view needing to look for negatives in their experiences to support their belief their home country is better than the country they are traveling in and they would therefore not only tend to focus more on what’s wrong than what’s right about their experience, but also hold themselves back or keep a distance because they are at least in part in critiquing mode rather than just being able to embrace or immerse themselves in the experience.

Edited July 21, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope this helps, I was trying to share the video with the young man's opinion on here w/o giving my identity away. Hope this works:

ETA: Oh, it's still showing my identity. I will edit again hopefully.

ETA again:

Here's the AI response I like.

• Universal Gospel:

  The Bible emphasizes a universal gospel message that transcends national boundaries and calls for love and service to all people, regardless of their nationality or background. 

   
• Kingdom of God:

  Christianity focuses on the "Kingdom of God," which is not synonymous with any earthly nation. The Bible teaches that the true allegiance of Christians is to God's kingdom, which is not limited to a specific country. 

   
• Warning against Idolatry:

  Christian nationalism can be seen as a form of idolatry, prioritizing the nation above God and distorting Christian faith. 

   
• Jesus' Teachings:

  Jesus' teachings emphasize love, compassion, and justice, which should be applied to all people, not just those within a particular nation. 

   
• Focus on Individual Conversion:

  The Bible emphasizes individual conversion and a personal relationship with God as the path to salvation, not national identity or affiliation. 

   

While some Christians may hold nationalistic views, these views are not supported by biblical teachings. Christians Against Christian Nationalism is an organization that actively opposes Christian nationalism and offers resources for understanding its dangers. 

I appreciate the effort you put into sharing this, but I don't believe it answered my question, which basically was:

What is your definition of "Christian Nationalism"?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I appreciate the effort you put into sharing this, but I don't believe it answered my question, which basically was:

What is your definition of "Christian Nationalism"?

My personal one is that they are behind the Project 2025 deal that is the map for whomever will put it in place. And they are more or less a white supremacy group (but not as much as in the past). They believe that all must be Christian in the USA or are possibly going to hell, if not. Which is nice that our religion is more compassionate about our members not going to hell if they don't believe. And they don't have love for all people, they don't believe in the Founding Fathers' words about freedom of religion and they don't support our constitution and are trying to change it. They want to force the individuals in the USA to love their country no matter what and they don't believe in the individual's freedom of thought. They are already having schools put up the Ten Commandments. They are basically killing women because they won't allow abortions no matter what, even if the baby has died in the womb and the mother may die from it. You should read about Debbie Reynolds nearly dying from being denied back in the day. And now we are going backwards to those days again. And women aren't considered equal to men. So many more things, but I'll leave it there for now. Since I like the AI one I posted on the definition of a Christian Nationalist. 

Here's the video I didn't dare share because it showed my FB profile, but with the help of Calm, I think I'm safe because I only see it, not everyone. Don't want anyone hunting me down.  Thanks again @Calm, that was kind of you. 

Here's the post I like, and Jesus would agree, IMO.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/199ny6JFUc/

Edited July 21, 2025 by Tacenda

[longview]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

What is Christian nationalism?

Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a “Christian nation”—not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future. Scholars like Samuel Huntington have made a similar argument: that America is defined by its “Anglo-Protestant” past and that we will lose our identity and our freedom if we do not preserve our cultural inheritance.

Christian nationalists do not reject the First Amendment and do not advocate for theocracy, but they do believe that Christianity should enjoy a privileged position in the public square. The term “Christian nationalism,” is relatively new, and its advocates generally do not use it of themselves, but it accurately describes American nationalists who believe American identity is inextricable from Christianity.

My bold

I think most people would agree it would NOT be appropriate for government to "mandate" any kind of religious observances. But it is proper for the U.S. president to make a proclamation for thanksgiving or for a day of "humiliation." Obviously no one is should be required to participate (freedom of religion of any kind AND freedom of association). The forced removal of Ten Commandments monuments and memorials from public places and court houses was deeply wrong. I asked chatGPT:

Quote

was there a u.s. supreme court declaration around 1897 that affirmed that America is a christian nation? please provide the recitations that support this thesis.

ChatGPT said:

Yes, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1892—not 1897—that is frequently cited in support of the idea that the United States is historically a Christian nation. The case is:

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

In this case, the Court was deciding whether a federal law prohibiting the importation of foreign laborers applied to a church hiring a foreign minister. The Court ruled in favor of the church, and in doing so made several broad statements about the religious foundation of the country.

Here are the most relevant passages often cited to support the claim:

---

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.”

“This is a Christian nation.”

“These and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

---

Contextual Note

It’s important to understand that this declaration was dicta—meaning, it was not a binding part of the legal reasoning for the decision, but rather the Court’s commentary. The primary legal issue was statutory interpretation, not the religious character of the nation.

The Court cited examples from colonial charters, early legal codes, and governmental practices (like chaplains in Congress) to argue that the founders acknowledged Christian principles as part of the nation’s heritage.

---

If you’d like, I can provide a more detailed breakdown or full excerpts from the ruling.

You said:

yes please

ChatGPT said:

Certainly. Below is a more detailed breakdown and extended excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in:

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Decided: February 29, 1892

---

🧑‍⚖️ Background of the Case

The Church of the Holy Trinity in New York hired a British minister, Rev. E. Walpole Warren, to serve their congregation. The U.S. government claimed this violated the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885, which prohibited companies or individuals from contracting foreign laborers to come to the U.S. to work.

The key legal issue was whether the law applied to a Christian minister, and the Court concluded that it did not—because Congress could not have intended to prevent religious institutions from hiring clergy.

---

📜 Key Recitations from the Decision

Justice David J. Brewer delivered the opinion of the Court. Below are notable excerpts, particularly the parts supporting the idea that the U.S. has Christian roots:

---

📍 Statement Affirming Christian Foundations

“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.”
(Referring to the Christian nature of American civilization.)

---

📍 Most Quoted Passage

“These and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

This is the most famous line and is often used (sometimes out of context) to assert that the Court declared America to be officially Christian.

---

📍 Citing Historical Documents and Practices

The Court listed a wide variety of examples of religious (Christian) expressions in American public life:

• Colonial charters that invoked God and the Christian religion

• State constitutions that referenced “Almighty God”

• The presence of chaplains in Congress and the military

• The practice of opening court sessions with prayer

• Religious observance of Thanksgiving and Sunday as a day of rest

From the opinion:

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning: they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”

“Not indeed, in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it... but nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation—in fact, as a nation whose foundations are broad and strong upon the principles of Christianity.”

---

📍 The Role of Christianity in Law and Culture

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.”

“It is impossible for it to be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

---

⚖️ Legal Weight and Legacy

It's crucial to emphasize that these statements were obiter dicta—they were not the basis of the legal ruling, which turned on statutory interpretation. The actual ruling was: The Alien Contract Labor Law was not meant to apply to ministers.

However, the cultural and rhetorical weight of these dicta has had long-standing impact, and is often cited by Christian nationalists and constitutional scholars alike—sometimes controversially.

[Tacenda]

I believe this is true about this day and age.

https://augustana.com/how-do-we-respond-to-christian-nationalism/

[webbles]

22 minutes ago, longview said:

I think most people would agree it would NOT be appropriate for government to "mandate" any kind of religious observances. But it is proper for the U.S. president to make a proclamation for thanksgiving or for a day of "humiliation." Obviously no one is should be required to participate (freedom of religion of any kind AND freedom of association). The forced removal of Ten Commandments monuments and memorials from public places and court houses was deeply wrong. I asked chatGPT:

For the 10 Commandments, I have to ask, which set?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Commandments_text_and_numbering has a decent rundown of the different traditions and their numbering.  I believe we (Latter-Day Saints) generally follow the LXX counting in that list.  But I suspect the Catholic and Lutheran would be more common for the US.

Also, the initial impetus to remove the 10 Commandments was from Stone V. Graham in 1980.  It was dealing with a Tennessee law that required all schools to have the 10 Commandments.  I disagree with that type of law.  I'm fine with allowing the 10 Commandments to be in schools, but not to require it.  But if a school does have the 10 Commandments, then it should either strip out the religious related laws (no graven image, etc) or include similar things from other religious traditions.

[sunstoned]

Quote

Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law that will make the state the nation’s largest to attempt to impose such a mandate.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/21/new-texas-law-requires-10-commandments-to-be-posted-in-every-public-school-classroom-00416468

I think this is a good example of Christian Nationalism.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, longview said:

I think most people would agree it would NOT be appropriate for government to "mandate" any kind of religious observances. But it is proper for the U.S. president to make a proclamation for thanksgiving or for a day of "humiliation." Obviously no one is should be required to participate (freedom of religion of any kind AND freedom of association). The forced removal of Ten Commandments monuments and memorials from public places and court houses was deeply wrong. I asked chatGPT:

I am not sure why Ten Commandments memorials are so beloved. Acting like they are some kind of brilliant advance in law is just silly. Four of the commandments are specifically religious. One is about family relationships and the five that could be considered secular are freakishly obvious and have been a part of virtually every culture in history. Are we really that proud of them? They aren’t groundbreaking or even enlightened. It is clearly an attempt to privilege the Bible and not some memorialization of the advancement of law.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

and the five that could be considered secular are freakishly obvious

Or perhaps they no longer are as "freakishly obvious" as they once were- which is why people want them posted?

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My personal one is that they are behind the Project 2025 deal that is the map for whomever will put it in place. And they are more or less a white supremacy group (but not as much as in the past). They believe that all must be Christian in the USA or are possibly going to hell, if not. Which is nice that our religion is more compassionate about our members not going to hell if they don't believe. And they don't have love for all people, they don't believe in the Founding Fathers' words about freedom of religion and they don't support our constitution and are trying to change it. They want to force the individuals in the USA to love their country no matter what and they don't believe in the individual's freedom of thought. They are already having schools put up the Ten Commandments. They are basically killing women because they won't allow abortions no matter what, even if the baby has died in the womb and the mother may die from it. You should read about Debbie Reynolds nearly dying from being denied back in the day. And now we are going backwards to those days again. And women aren't considered equal to men. So many more things, but I'll leave it there for now. Since I like the AI one I posted on the definition of a Christian Nationalist. 

Here's the video I didn't dare share because it showed my FB profile, but with the help of Calm, I think I'm safe because I only see it, not everyone. Don't want anyone hunting me down.  Thanks again @Calm, that was kind of you. 

Here's the post I like, and Jesus would agree, IMO.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/199ny6JFUc/

Setting aside the conspiracy theory surrounding Project 2025 and hyperbolic pro-abortion rhetoric can you please tell me how the points I've bolded pertain to the comment @teddyawaremade that caused you to reply with an implied accusation of "Christian Nationalism" as you have just defined it?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Setting aside the conspiracy theory surrounding Project 2025 and hyperbolic pro-abortion rhetoric can you please tell me how the points I've bolded pertain to the comment @teddyawaremade that caused you to reply with an implied accusation of "Christian Nationalism" as you have just defined it?

Others commented to teddyaware too. Why are you picking on me to say why I reacted, haha. 

[Tacenda]

Deleted...maybe too political.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Tacenda

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Or perhaps they no longer are as "freakishly obvious" as they once were- which is why people want them posted?

If it was solely the content of them that matter, then posting a version that combined the ‘obvious’ laws of the most common religious faiths in the US while leaving out the religious laws would be sufficient.  A statewide or national honor code could be created.

But it has to be the Ten Commandments instead?  The Buddhist version is useful as well and is more comprehensive, imo.  Here is the AI summary provided with me trimming off anything that leans towards what is often seen as religious, even when it isn’t.

1. Right View/Understanding:

This involves understanding the Four Noble Truths, which state that suffering exists, is caused by attachment, can be overcome, and has a path leading to its cessation.  Me:  given this is a religious perspective, I would change this to something more generic like ‘be aware that actions have consequences’

2. Right Resolve/Intention:

This refers to cultivating intentions based on non-violence, compassion, and renunciation, rather than harmful thoughts like hatred, greed, or ill-will. 

3. Right Speech:

This involves abstaining from lies, gossip, harsh language, and idle talk, and instead speaking truthfully, kindly, and constructively

4. Right Action:

This means acting ethically, avoiding harmful actions such as killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct, and instead engaging in actions that benefit others. 

5. Right Livelihood:

This entails earning a living in a way that does not harm oneself or others, avoiding trades that involve violence, deception, or exploitation. 

6. Right Effort:

This involves actively cultivating positive mental states and abandoning negative ones, striving to prevent unwholesome qualities from arising and to nurture wholesome ones

7. Right Mindfulness:

This is the practice of being aware of one's thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations in the present moment without judgment. 

8. Right Concentration:

This involves developing focused attention and mental discipline through meditation. 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Here’s another possibility generated when I asked for a nonreligious version of the Ten Commandments:

• Treat others as you wish to be treated. This is a common ethical principle found in many cultures. 
   
• Seek truth and understanding. Strive to learn and understand the world around you through evidence and reason. 
   
• Be mindful of the consequences of your actions. Consider how your choices affect yourself and others. 
   
• Take responsibility for your actions. Acknowledge your role in the outcomes of your decisions. 
   
• Promote well-being. Act in ways that foster happiness, health, and a positive environment for yourself and others.
   
• Respect individual autonomy. Recognize and respect the right of others to make their own choices.
   
• Be open to new ideas and perspectives. Be willing to change your mind when presented with new evidence or different viewpoints. 
   
• Strive for justice and fairness. Work to create a society where everyone has equal opportunities. 
   
• Cultivate empathy and compassion. Try to understand and share the feelings of others.
   
• Leave the world a better place than you found it. Contribute to making the world a more positive and sustainable place for future generations

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe this is true about this day and age.

https://augustana.com/how-do-we-respond-to-christian-nationalism/

While some of the things he says are on point, imo, I disagree in his equating the Religious Right with Christian Nationalism as well the “language and theology” of Christian Nationalism with the imposition of Sharia law by extremists, except at a very superficial level (privileging religious laws in government).

Quote

In the United States, the Christian right (otherwise known as the New Christian Right or the Religious Right)[9] is an informal coalition which was formed around a core of conservative Evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics.[12]The Christian right draws additional support from politically conservative mainline Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and Mormons.[14] The movement in American politics became a dominant feature of U.S. conservatism from the late 1970s onwards.[1][2] The Christian right gained powerful influence within the Republican Partyduring the Presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.[19] Its influence draws from grassroots activism as well as from focus on social issues and the ability to motivate the electorate around those issues.[20]

The Christian right has advanced socially conservative positions on issues such as creationism in public education,[22] school prayer,[1][23] temperance,[1][24] Christian nationalism,[1][25] Christian Zionism,[3] and Sunday Sabbatarianism,[26] as well as opposition to the teaching of biological evolution,[21] embryonic stem cell research,[27] LGBTQ rights,[31] abortion,[1][23] euthanasia,[33] pornography,[37] and the use of drugs.[39] Although the term Christian right is most commonly associated with U.S. politics,[3] similar Christian conservative groups can be found in the political cultures of other Christian-majority countries.[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

I would say Christian Nationalism is a subset of the Religious/Christian Right, though describing the two as overlapping might be more accurate given there are likely some concerns of the Christian Right that Christian Nationalists in general ignore.  Neither group is monolithic, one size fits all, so determining the amount of overlap is problematic.

Edited July 21, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Or perhaps they no longer are as "freakishly obvious" as they once were- which is why people want them posted?

We can actually check that ‘perhaps’ and no, just no.

There weren’t any societies where murdering other people in the society wasn’t self-evidently a bad idea. Law existed to prevent the kinds of feuds this would start. Same with adultery. Same with theft. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is specifically about lying to get someone in legal trouble and not lying in general. Perjury was so self-evidently bad that many societies (up to today) take religious oaths not to lie when testifying. Of course these protections often ended with your tribe or society or whatever but they were there.

These aren’t bold innovations. The Egyptians that Moses and the rest were fleeing had these kinds of laws.

Also I don’t believe for a second that the defenders of these monuments know or care about whether the Ten Commandments were somehow exceptional in their own context. They weren’t. There are parts of the Torah that I think are to an extent really advanced for their time but the Ten Commandments don’t belong in that category.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Setting aside the conspiracy theory surrounding Project 2025 and hyperbolic pro-abortion rhetoric can you please tell me how the points I've bolded pertain to the comment @teddyawaremade that caused you to reply with an implied accusation of "Christian Nationalism" as you have just defined it?

It is not a conspiracy theory when the source is literally authenticated documentation from the conspirators. It becomes even less plausible as a conspiracy when you watch the conspirators attempt to carry out the documented plan.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not a conspiracy theory when the source is literally authenticated documentation from the conspirators. It becomes even less plausible as a conspiracy when you watch the conspirators attempt to carry out the documented plan.

What are your thoughts on the United Nations 2030 initiative?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

While some of the things he says are on point, imo, I disagree in his equating the Religious Right with Christian Nationalism as well the “language and theology” of Christian Nationalism with the imposition of Sharia law by extremists, except at a very superficial level (privileging religious laws in government).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

I would say Christian Nationalism is a subset of the Religious/Christian Right, though describing the two as overlapping might be more accurate given there are likely some concerns of the Christian Right that Christian Nationalists in general ignore.  Neither group is monolithic, one size fits all, so determining the amount of overlap is problematic.

The irony is that the Church used an equivalent of Sharia law in the early days when church courts dealt with legal matters in early LDS communities. The Catholics have a long history of having religious courts though the punishments they could inflict were limited by secular powers.

The danger of Christian Nationalism is that it wants to undo liberal democracy. One of the reasons for the First Amendment and the restrictions of privileging religious groups was basically an attempt to avoid the religious wars of the early modern period that tore Europe apart. Compared to the previous medieval period these wars were particularly bloody and protracted because religious wars just tend to be that way. In normal pre-modern wars you wanted to capture the land and the people on it. In religious wars you wanted to convert or kill.

The brilliance of liberal democracy was that it considers religious affiliation much too dangerous to be a political point of contention so it removes religious choice and affiliation from the political process. If your religion being in power relies on winning an election elections can quickly become existential threats as it means some other religion might be in power if you lose. Without protection for minority views elections turn bloody. What we have seen lately is a lot of people making elections into existential threats and enough people believing they are that they are actually inching closer and closer to being existential threats. I have friends who have fled the state I live in because they are justifiably afraid of losing rights they had due to election results.

Being an illiberal democracy is a possibility and as history shows those are easy to turn into tyrannical/authoritarian structures. Sometimes they keep the elections around for show though. The Founders did warn about this. It is darkly funny to look back at those who fought the First Amendment and other liberal aspects of the early US government with scare tactics about how not having a religious test for public office might (shock/horror) mean a “Mohammedan” could be elected to public office. Same scare tactics, different verse. And the ones who wrap themselves in the flag taking the side the majority of the Founders opposed.

Insisting a liberal democracy is Christian is not just a passive statement. It is a threat to non-Christians.

And on a purely practical level for LDS members in particular do you really think the other Christians won’t turn on us the second they don’t need us anymore? You really think that after they establish Christianity as a kind of national religion that they will tolerate the more aberrant forms of it? History says no. Those who back a movement that eventually turns on them are remembered as “useful idiots”. Imagine Brigham Young hearing that the Saints thought they could trust the Christians of the mobs they fled.

To badly paraphrase an ancient line: “I fear the Protestants even when they come bearing gifts”

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What are your thoughts on the United Nations 2030 initiative?

Idealists who are largely ignored. It is not a conspiracy. It is an attempt to try to make the world better by fighting climate change and growing economies worldwide. The UN has little power to bind anyone to those goals so it is mostly wishful thinking. Most of the goals are not on track to be achieved and I suspect few will be achieved.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Idealists who are largely ignored. It is not a conspiracy. It is an attempt to try to make the world better by fighting climate change and growing economies worldwide. The UN has little power to bind anyone to those goals so it is mostly wishful thinking. Most of the goals are not on track to be achieved and I suspect few will be achieved.

Geese and ganders. 

One man's conspiracy is another man's noble attempt to make things better.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Idealists who are largely ignored. It is not a conspiracy. It is an attempt to try to make the world better by fighting climate change and growing economies worldwide. The UN has little power to bind anyone to those goals so it is mostly wishful thinking. Most of the goals are not on track to be achieved and I suspect few will be achieved.

Kind of similar to Project 2025.  Except Project 2025 actually got some people in power who can make parts of it happen.  If the idealists behind 2030 ever did get power, they would definitely put it into motion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

liberal democracy

Liberal in the classical sense (I am pointing that out because I know people who define “liberal” solely in terms of the current more extreme members of the Democratic Party and for whom it is a negative label).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And on a purely practical level for LDS members in particular do you really think the other Christians won’t turn on us the second they don’t need us anymore?

That would depend on what kind of Christian theology they have.  My guess is those most vocal about the need for Christian Nationalism would likely include a good percentage of those who exclude LDS from the Christian community.