Pew Research on Religious Nationalism Worldwide

[Calm]

We talked earlier about Christian Nationalism in the US, so I thought people would be interested in this study I stumbled across today from January.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/01/28/comparing-levels-of-religious-nationalism-around-the-world/
 

“In many countries, religion and politics are deeply intertwined. The belief that a country’s historically predominant religion should be a central part of its national identity and drive policymaking is sometimes described as “religious nationalism.”

A wide range of movements have been described as religious nationalism, including in India, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi has campaigned and governed on the idea that Hindu faith and culture should shape government policies; and in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is backed by a coalition that includes ultra-Orthodox and national religious parties.

But there is no universally accepted definition of religious nationalism, leaving lots of room for debate over who is, say, a Christian nationalist or a Hindu nationalist. This has made it difficult to assess how common such views are around the world.

To help fill this gap, Pew Research Center set out to measure – in an impartial, consistent way – what share of people in different countries view the dominant religious tradition as central to their national identity, want their leaders to share their religious beliefs, and want religious teachings to guide their laws.

We asked four key questions in nationally representative surveys of nearly 55,000 people, conducted from January to May 2024 in three dozen countries1:

How important is belonging to the historically predominant religion to being truly part of your national identity? (For example, how important is being a Muslim to being truly Indonesian, or being a Christian to being truly American?)

How important is it to you for your national leader to share your religious beliefs?

How much influence do you think the historically predominant religion’s sacred text should have on the laws of your country? (For example, how much influence should the Quran have on the laws of Turkey, or should the Bible have on the laws of Italy?)

When the sacred text conflicts with the will of the people, which should have more influence on the laws of your country? (This follow-up question was asked only of respondents who answered the previous question by saying that the sacred text should have a “fair amount” or “great deal” of influence on their country’s laws.)

For this report, we define “religious nationalists” as people who identify with the historically predominant religion (also often the majority religion) and take a strongly religious position on all four of these questions.”

“Using this definition, the prevalence of religious nationalism varies widely across the 35 countries where we asked all four of these questions. Fewer than 1% of adults surveyed meet the criteria in Germany and Sweden, compared with more than four-in-ten in Indonesia (46%) and Bangladesh (45%).”

For those primarily interested in US standing:

“In this global perspective, the U.S. does not stand out for especially high levels of religious nationalism.

Just 6% of U.S. adults are religious nationalists by the combination of these four measures, about the same level as several other countries surveyed in the Americas, such as Chile (6%), Mexico (8%) and Argentina (8%).Canada has a relatively low share of religious nationalists (3%), while Colombia (12%), Brazil (13%) and Peru (17%) have somewhat higher shares.

However, the U.S. does stand out when compared with other high-income countries, particularly on questions about religious texts. U.S. adults are more likely than people in any other high-income country surveyed to say the Bible currently has either a great deal or some influence over the laws of their country (in other countries, people were asked about other texts).

And the U.S. public is also more inclined than people in other high-income countries to say that the Bible should have that kind of influence (again, relative to the sacred texts asked about in other places).

Americans are also among the most likely of any high-income public to:

Describe a religious identity (in this case, being a Christian) as very important to truly sharing in the national identity (being American)

Say it’s very important for their country’s political leader to have strong religious beliefs.”

Edited May 6 by Calm

[Calm]

So it just occurred to me…

Is “religious nationalism” a relevant discussion for Vatican City (the smallest country in terms of area and population in the world)?  

Disappointed because I don’t see a survey for VC in the above.

Edited May 5 by Calm

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

So it just occurred to me…

Is “religious nationalism” a relevant discussion for Vatican City (the smallest country in terms of area and population in the world)?  

Disappointed because I don’t see a survey for VC in the above.

I imagine that the size of VC would militate against bothering to conduct that survey there. And I suppose that the answer would be a foregone conclusion, anyway. Something along the lines of 100% religious nationalist (though I suppose it might not be quite that high)! I wonder why they didn't survey Saudi Arabia? Seems the religious nationalism value might be rather high there, it being the cradle of Islam, after all. Maybe that's why they didn't survey SA? Because like VC the results might have been seen as a foregone conclusion?

[Devobah]

I wish we had more information on what the “historically predominant religion” is for each of these countries. Like in Nigeria, is it more cultural religiosity or is Christianity the historical predominant religion?
 

Edited to add clarification.

Edited May 6 by Devobah

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Devobah said:

I wish we had more information on what the “historically predominant religion” is for each of these countries. Like in Nigeria, is it more cultural religiosity or is Christianity the historical predominant religion?
 

Edited to add clarification.

That’s what wiki is for.  

[halconero]

On 5/6/2025 at 12:11 PM, Devobah said:

I wish we had more information on what the “historically predominant religion” is for each of these countries. Like in Nigeria, is it more cultural religiosity or is Christianity the historical predominant religion?
 

Edited to add clarification.

They specifically address Nigeria (and South Korea) in polling about two different historically predominant religions.

[halconero]

A bit of context, but despite my recent forays into atonement theory, but day job is still working in academia with a focus on public policy. Topically, I focus on immigration policy, but increasingly on the broader subject of data collection methods, validity, and reliability. Those things have less to do with data integrity (which deals with transparency, security, fraud, and maintaining data) and more to do with whether the data collection methods we use accurately capture the information we want them to in a consistent way. Without getting overly political, we can all think of recent issues in polling and whether it accurately represents what we want it to represent.

In that regard, I actually found myself weirdly frustrated with this survey from a methodological standpoint. The Vatican City question actually typifies it:

1) The survey indexes religious nationalism in way that assumes textual primacy (explicitly) and textual literalism (implicitly). That's very Sola Scriptura of them, and downplays the extent to which different religions value tradition, magisterium, use of ritual space, or symbolism at an equal or greater level than textualism. We probably under-count the number of Japanese religious people for this reason, despite the fact that plenty (if not most) still visit public shrines semi-regularly and keep a private shrine at home. If textualism is the hallmark of religious nationalism, we likely risk making some small county in the Deep South more religiously nationalist than the Vatican, where the latter values plenty of things apart from text alone.

2) I'm not they clearly articulate what they mean by the "nation," "nationalism," or "nationalist." They construct an index, sure, but how do they arrive at those specific questions defining whether someone is a nationalist or not? Plenty of countries link ethnic identity with concept of nationhood (e.g., Québec is legally dined as a "nation" within the Canadian confederation, and retains its own "National Assembly" at the provincial level). The Vatican is quite literally a theocracy, but it's a multi-ethnic one by nature, without a clear concept of national self, but certainly an ecclesial one. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Vatican had major beefs with European conceptualizations of the nation or nationalism for the very reason that it undermined the church's universal claims. Put all together, the term "Catholic" (it's very literally meaning) might actually do a lot of work to undermine attempts to classify it by religious nationalism.

I respect the effort, especially the global one, but it's a poor study in my opinion. Theories of religious nationalism typically include dimensions of whether the state should constitutionally favour a particular religion, not just whether the head of state should belong to it. They typically focus on granting policy privileges to a particular religion, and excluding others, and the inclusion of latent symbols in public spaces. As a result, you might get wonky results like this when coding results:

1) Respondent 1:

• Wants Christianity to be the state religion of the United States.
• Wants state-funded faith schools.
• Wants to start the morning off with everyone reciting the Lord's prayer.
• Accepts congressional sovereignty over the legislative process versus the Bible.
• Coded non-religious nationalist by Pew.

2) Respondent 2:

• Supports Sharia as supreme law based on a literal interpretation of the Quran.
• Thinks minorities should be able to self-govern based on their own laws.
• Indifferent to special budgets or privileges for mosques or clerical seats in parliament.
• Coded religious nationalist by Pew.

3) Respondent:

• Backs Hindutva cultural supremacy, including Hindi signage and cow-protection laws.
• Refutes the two-nation philosophy in favour of a Hindu dominated, unitary state including Pakistan and Bangladesh under India.
• Doesn't read nor care for Hindu texts.
• Coded as non-religious nationalist by Pew.

In reality, I'd likely code all three of these as religious nationalists, but the survey methodology and its approach to constructing its index is so specific and limited that it's likely under-counting a good number of people.

Edited May 7 by halconero

[The Nehor]

On 5/5/2025 at 5:32 PM, Calm said:

So it just occurred to me…

Is “religious nationalism” a relevant discussion for Vatican City (the smallest country in terms of area and population in the world)?  

Disappointed because I don’t see a survey for VC in the above.

Not really. It is a microstate. No one is born a citizen of Vatican City (they don’t have a hospital to be born in) and you only live there by invitation. The whole nation is less than half of a square kilometer in size. Last I heard about 800 people lived there. That is actually a lot for such a small space but they are all church officials and their staff.

[teddyaware]

In the midst of this discussion on religious nationalism, I’m wondering if the following most dire prophetic warnings of the consequences that will inevitably follow if the inhabitants of the American promised land refuse to believe in and serve Jesus Christ amount to a justification for the advocacy of some form of Christian nationalism in the United States?

If the following most easy to understand verses of holy writ don’t provide a justification for some form of Christ centered nationalism in the United States, is missionary work the only means at hand that can be employed in righteousness in an attempt to avoid the fulfillment of these most solemn conditional prophesies of unavoidable national destruction if the people reject Christ?

Are laws that reflect the mind and will of Jesus Christ unacceptable even if the formulators of those laws never openly acknowledge that the mind and will of Jesus Christ played a roll in the creation of said laws?

Finally, is there some way that the conservative members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the United States can openly declare in church settings that the only way for the United States to avoid the kind of national destruction that befell the Jaredites and Nephites is for the people of the nation to believe in and serve Jesus Christ without the more ‘progressive’ members of the church calling them jingoistic kooks? In other words, are church members unable to quote the following verses of scripture without being subjected to mockery and condemnation from the more progressive church members?

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. (Ether 2)

 

Edited May 8 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In the midst of this discussion on religious nationalism, I’m wondering if the following most dire prophetic warnings of the consequences that will inevitably follow if the inhabitants of the American promised land refuse to believe in and serve Jesus Christ amount to a justification for the advocacy of some form of Christian nationalism in the United States?

This kind of begs the question, because as near as I can tell Christian nationalism has nothing to do with belief in and service of the things Christ taught. Quite the opposite. 

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. It is a microstate. No one is born a citizen of Vatican City (they don’t have a hospital to be born in) and you only live there by invitation. The whole nation is less than half of a square kilometer in size. Last I heard about 800 people lived there. That is actually a lot for such a small space but they are all church officials and their staff.

And this is an appropriate moment for another CGP Grey video, this one about Vatican City:

 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In the midst of this discussion on religious nationalism, I’m wondering if the following most dire prophetic warnings of the consequences that will inevitably follow if the inhabitants of the American promised land refuse to believe in and serve Jesus Christ amount to a justification for the advocacy of some form of Christian nationalism in the United States?

I would suggest not, for a couple reasons:

1) The "American promised land": There is nothing in scripture that indicates these verses refer to the United States exclusively. We have plenty of references that suggest the United States was established to allow for the Restoration, but nothing which indicates that the promises in the Book of Mormon refer exclusively to it. By contrast, there are plenty of implicit indications within the Book of Mormon that indicate its promises and warnings extend to the Americas generally. Likewise, there are plenty of statements by Joseph Smith and other early Restoration leaders indicating that Zion as a geopolitical concept encompassed the Americas as a whole. The idea of encouraging continental adherence to Gospel principles would imply a Christian Internationalism versus a country-specific adherence to them. The people of Canada, Peru, or Belize are just as blessed (or condemned) for their (non-)adherence to the promises made on this land as United States citizens are.

2) "Believe in and serve": The verses cited below suggest that service, not belief, is required to receive the blessings of this land. I'm open to the possibility that service includes believing in Jesus Christ, but there are other locations in scripture that suggest service more narrowly encompasses charitable living and justice towards others. We likewise have statements from early Church leaders suggesting that non-members (including non-Christians) will have part in Zion's political project leading up to the Second Coming and during the Millennium. By definition, religious nationalism grounds provides a particular religion or denomination political privileges, whereas the religious political project proposed by Joseph Smith extended religious privilege and protection to all.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If the following most easy to understand verses of holy writ don’t provide a justification for some form of Christ centered nationalism in the United States, is missionary work the only means at hand that can be employed in righteousness in an attempt to avoid the fulfillment of these most solemn conditional prophesies of unavoidable national destruction if the people reject Christ?

3) It may or may not provide a justification, but running counter to that are rather frequent and rather recent admonitions against nationalism generally. Consider:

RUSSELL M. NELSON

Quote

"Think of the progress made in transportation, communication, commerce, agriculture, medicine, science, and electronics. But spiritual progress has lagged behind. We see evidences of increasing ethnic strife and hatred. Nationalism seems to be taking priority over brotherly love. Violence and civil wars are raging."

Also:

"Tonight, I plead with you not to replace these three paramount and unchanging identifiers (being a child of God, a member of the Church, and a disciple of Jesus Christ) with any others, because doing so could stymie your progress or pigeonhole you in a stereotype that could potentially thwart your eternal progression."

"For example, if you are identified mainly as an American, those who are not Americans may think, 'I know everything there is to know about you,' and attribute erroneous beliefs to you."

"If you identify yourself by your political affiliation, you will instantly be categorized as having certain beliefs—though I don’t know anyone who believes everything that their preferred political party presently embraces."

"We could go on and on, rehearsing the constraints of various labels that we put on ourselves, or that other people place upon us."

"Some might label me as an “old man.” But I’m a lot younger than Adam was and Noah, too. Ageism, racism, nationalism, sexism, and a host of other 'isms' are universally limiting."

"Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any abuse or prejudice towards another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture, or other significant identifiers is offensive to our Maker! Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters!"

"There are various labels that may be very important to you, of course. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that other designations and identifiers are not significant. I am simply saying that no identifier should displace, replace, or take priority over these three enduring designations: 'child of God,' 'child of the covenant,' and 'disciple of Jesus Christ.'"

"Any identifier that is not compatible with those three basic designations will ultimately let you down. Other labels will disappoint you in time because they do not have the power to lead you toward eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God."

M. RUSSELL BALLARD

Quote

"We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism. Let it be said that we truly believe the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are for every child of God." (later quoted by Neil L. Andersen)

Remember, nationalism by definition requires the legal favour of certain institutions over others, or what is likewise called positive discrimination (something that SCOTUS recently struck down with regards to Affirmative Action). Laws or policy that would favour one creed over another, whether it be religious restrictions on immigration, employment, or education, are, by transitive value, offensive to God.

Do we want to promote principles and ideals grounded in Christianity that do not abused or prejudice against others, Christians and non-Christians? I'm all for it, but then, that's not Christian nationalism. So do we care more about the label and the identity, or the outcome?

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Are laws that reflect the mind and will of Jesus Christ unacceptable even if the formulators of those laws never openly acknowledge that the mind and will of Jesus Christ played a roll in the creation of said laws?

I think that's fine. It's just not Christian nationalism then.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Finally, is there some way that the conservative members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the United States can openly declare in church settings that the only way for the United States to avoid the kind of national destruction that befell the Jaredites and Nephites is for the people of the nation to believe in and serve Jesus Christ without the more ‘progressive’ members of the church calling them jingoistic kooks? In other words, are church members unable to quote the following verses of scripture without being subjected to mockery and condemnation from the more progressive church members?

Might I suggest that I often hear conservative and progressive members talking past each other? We all have our favourite sins we like to rail against, and our favourite righteous causes to uphold. Frequently, I see more members focused on wanting to be preachers on the wall without having cleansed the inner vessel first. I routinely here General Authorities calling for inwards repentance and sanctification, and then see members assume they're talking about their conservative (or progressive) neighbour before asking "Lord, is it I?"

With regards these verses, I do think it's disturbing to see more progressive leaning members discard certain teachings in favour of certain social causes or issues. I don't like to see them mock more conservative leaning members.

However, I likewise see conservative members throw aside Christian principles of service, compassion, charity, love, and our common citizenship in the Kingdom of God in favour of an earthly citizenship that must needs be done away with upon Christ's return.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

I would suggest not, for a couple reasons:

1) The "American promised land": There is nothing in scripture that indicates these verses refer to the United States exclusively. We have plenty of references that suggest the United States was established to allow for the Restoration, but nothing which indicates that the promises in the Book of Mormon refer exclusively to it. By contrast, there are plenty of implicit indications within the Book of Mormon that indicate its promises and warnings extend to the Americas generally. Likewise, there are plenty of statements by Joseph Smith and other early Restoration leaders indicating that Zion as a geopolitical concept encompassed the Americas as a whole. The idea of encouraging continental adherence to Gospel principles would imply a Christian Internationalism versus a country-specific adherence to them. The people of Canada, Peru, or Belize are just as blessed (or condemned) for their (non-)adherence to the promises made on this land as United States citizens are.

2) "Believe in and serve": The verses cited below suggest that service, not belief, is required to receive the blessings of this land. I'm open to the possibility that service includes believing in Jesus Christ, but there are other locations in scripture that suggest service more narrowly encompasses charitable living and justice towards others. We likewise have statements from early Church leaders suggesting that non-members (including non-Christians) will have part in Zion's political project leading up to the Second Coming and during the Millennium. By definition, religious nationalism grounds provides a particular religion or denomination political privileges, whereas the religious political project proposed by Joseph Smith extended religious privilege and protection to all.

3) It may or may not provide a justification, but running counter to that are rather frequent and rather recent admonitions against nationalism generally. Consider:

RUSSELL M. NELSON

M. RUSSELL BALLARD

Remember, nationalism by definition requires the legal favour of certain institutions over others, or what is likewise called positive discrimination (something that SCOTUS recently struck down with regards to Affirmative Action). Laws or policy that would favour one creed over another, whether it be religious restrictions on immigration, employment, or education, are, by transitive value, offensive to God.

Do we want to promote principles and ideals grounded in Christianity that do not abused or prejudice against others, Christians and non-Christians? I'm all for it, but then, that's not Christian nationalism. So do we care more about the label and the identity, or the outcome?

I think that's fine. It's just not Christian nationalism then.

Might I suggest that I often hear conservative and progressive members talking past each other? We all have our favourite sins we like to rail against, and our favourite righteous causes to uphold. Frequently, I see more members focused on wanting to be preachers on the wall without having cleansed the inner vessel first. I routinely here General Authorities calling for inwards repentance and sanctification, and then see members assume they're talking about their conservative (or progressive) neighbour before asking "Lord, is it I?"

With regards these verses, I do think it's disturbing to see more progressive leaning members discard certain teachings in favour of certain social causes or issues. I don't like to see them mock more conservative leaning members.

However, I likewise see conservative members throw aside Christian principles of service, compassion, charity, love, and our common citizenship in the Kingdom of God in favour of an earthly citizenship that must needs be done away with upon Christ's return.

I think it might be instructive to consider the definition of "nationalism." It isn't mere patriotism.

From Enclopedia Britannica: "Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests."

There are then two elements. First loyalty to a nation or nation-state. That's patriotism. But the second part is required for patriotism to become nationalism. 

Edited May 8 by Stargazer

[Calm]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

the inhabitants of the American promised land refuse to believe in and serve Jesus Christ amount to a justification for the advocacy of some form of Christian nationalism in the United States?

If people are only believing in Christ because others having some sort of governmental or institutional authority believe in Christ, I don’t think that is going to save us in the end because what happens when leaders lose faith or start twisting it for their own ends?

Edited May 9 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In the midst of this discussion on religious nationalism, I’m wondering if the following most dire prophetic warnings of the consequences that will inevitably follow if the inhabitants of the American promised land refuse to believe in and serve Jesus Christ amount to a justification for the advocacy of some form of Christian nationalism in the United States?

If the following most easy to understand verses of holy writ don’t provide a justification for some form of Christ centered nationalism in the United States, is missionary work the only means at hand that can be employed in righteousness in an attempt to avoid the fulfillment of these most solemn conditional prophesies of unavoidable national destruction if the people reject Christ?

Are laws that reflect the mind and will of Jesus Christ unacceptable even if the formulators of those laws never openly acknowledge that the mind and will of Jesus Christ played a roll in the creation of said laws?

Finally, is there some way that the conservative members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the United States can openly declare in church settings that the only way for the United States to avoid the kind of national destruction that befell the Jaredites and Nephites is for the people of the nation to believe in and serve Jesus Christ without the more ‘progressive’ members of the church calling them jingoistic kooks? In other words, are church members unable to quote the following verses of scripture without being subjected to mockery and condemnation from the more progressive church members?

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. (Ether 2)

 

To avoid the punishment of God we must compel righteousness on others?

Huh, sounds like a good idea. It is actually a bit mindboggling that no one in mortality or premortality ever advanced a plan like this before. If they had we could look at history and see how it worked out for them.

[BCSpace]

I believe Nationalism, by itself, no adjectives, is an absolute requirement for liberty and freedom. Consider the extreme example of a one-world government. There is nothing you can do if you don't like that government, and nowhere to escape if that government comes after you. On the other hand, in the United States (where we can be loyal and devoted to individual states), if you don't like California, you can go to Nebraska. And state that at some point, you didn't like can become likable again.

[Teancum]

On 5/8/2025 at 11:28 AM, teddyaware said:

n the midst of this discussion on religious nationalism, I’m wondering if the following most dire prophetic warnings of the consequences that will inevitably follow if the inhabitants of the American promised land refuse to believe in and serve Jesus Christ amount to a justification for the advocacy of some form of Christian nationalism in the United States?

Nope. Nada. We have a secular constitution. Worship how, where and what you want. Or not. But keep your religion to yourself and don't legislate it onto others. No we don't need Christian Nationalism in any form in the USA. And frankly, from what I see from Christian Nationalists, they are much of a good Christian anyway.  And most the Christian Nationalists don't think Latter-day Saints are Christian anyway. So be careful what you wish for.

[Teancum]

On 6/20/2025 at 1:37 AM, BCSpace said:

I believe Nationalism, by itself, no adjectives, is an absolute requirement for liberty and freedom. Consider the extreme example of a one-world government. There is nothing you can do if you don't like that government, and nowhere to escape if that government comes after you. On the other hand, in the United States (where we can be loyal and devoted to individual states), if you don't like California, you can go to Nebraska. And state that at some point, you didn't like can become likable again.

Nationalism or patriotism. I think the two are different.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Nationalism or patriotism. I think the two are different.

They are. The United States also isn’t actually a nation by the strict definition: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Note that for most nations that common descent and history is mythical. In the United States we rejected that definition. We don’t have a shared history or ancestry. We are not an ethnostate. We took people from all over. Europeans mingled with indigenous people. You are just as much an American if your ancestors stepped off the Mayflower as you are if you are Korean or Nigerian and showed up last year. This inclusiveness was admittedly very limited at first, filled with conflict, and has an ugly history of being ignored or abused but the aspiration was always there to an extent.

Nationalism in the United States is a poison. It is pretty much inextricably tied to racism and seeing one ethnic group as predominant. This can be explicit or implicit. There might be a kind of condescending paternalistic attitude to other ethnic groups that accepts those who fit in in the right way all the way to xenophobia. Nationalism will destroy the United States as we know it if it is allowed to thrive. Christian Nationalists in the US want a religious ethnostate and to somehow maintain the US’s exceptional status ignoring that they want to be more like many of the other nations on earth. One can hear the cries of the Israelites and the Nephites: “Give us a king!”

Patriotism is an allegiance to the highest aspirational values of your country and allowing other countries the same. Nationalism involves the hatred/envy/contempt of other countries. Nationalism loves symbols. It venerates icons and worship idols while ignoring any meaning behind them. Nationalism says the country is great because we are great. Patriotism is to reach for the good. Nationalism says you are inherently good and all problems are due to the foreign “other” that has poisoned us and/or due to other countries that hold us back or trick us or suppress our rightful place or whatever. For patriots foreign policy is about countries growing better together while dealing with countries that want to halt that progress as best they can. For nationalists foreign policy is a zero-sum game of “might makes right”.

Nationalism leads to war, poverty, and authoritarianism. Patriotism can lead to a better place. A lot of nationalists either in ignorance or malice calls themselves patriots.

Patriotism doesn’t run on hatred or fear. Nationalism does.

[The Nehor]

On 6/20/2025 at 12:37 AM, BCSpace said:

I believe Nationalism, by itself, no adjectives, is an absolute requirement for liberty and freedom. Consider the extreme example of a one-world government. There is nothing you can do if you don't like that government, and nowhere to escape if that government comes after you. On the other hand, in the United States (where we can be loyal and devoted to individual states), if you don't like California, you can go to Nebraska. And state that at some point, you didn't like can become likable again.

That is not what nationalism means. Also you portray a world where going from one country to another is easy and simply a matter of choice. In most of history it was rare to have the option and it still isn’t reasonably possible for most people.

[The Nehor]

A well-written blog post on why the United States is not a nation as the word strictly means:

https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-nation/

Here is a bit of it:

Quote

But an appeal to the nation for unity is always going to leave quite a lot of American citizens – perhaps even most of them – cold. Try calling Americans to war to fight for the ‘bones of their ancestors’ and you see the problem immediately: whose bones? Which ancestors? Buried where? Different Americans will give very difference answers to those questions! But call Americans to war because “your fellow citizens were attacked” and the response is real and emotive. I’ve always suspected this is the same reason for the particular centrality of the United States’ founding documents; we do not all have the founding itself in common, but we do have the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in common because those documents are understood to apply to citizens, regardless of where they fit in one’s ancestry and to guide the country as it exists now (this is presumably why the Articles of Confederation, no less historic, do not inspire the same patriotic feelings).

Worse yet is the idea that what the United States really needs is a national project, the sort of ‘nation building’ which transformed the fragmented states of Europe into a series of nation-states, to forge a national Blut und Boden (‘blood and soil’) identity out of United States citizens. It cannot be done; one may as well attempt to throw a pot from a bag of granite rocks, the raw material is wrong. Efforts to try to build this kind of national identity run aground on the same problem: whatever distant common history or myth of common origin one selects as the foundation for this kind of national project inevitably won’t be shared or understood in the same way by others, either because their ancestors weren’t here for that moment or found themselves on the unpleasant business end of it. This is not to say that Americans are immune to bad ideological projects, or that all national projects are necessarily bad (though some very much are), merely that the effort to form a nation generally fails because the basic ingredients are wrong. The necessary binding agent has been actively removed, though that hasn’t stopped regular efforts to replace it with crude populism and xenophobia. In a way, one may feel pity for the born-American who emotively longs for the comfort of the nation because it is something they cannot have, but then there ought to be a country for the people who would rather not be in a nation and here it is.

None of which is to say, as I have seen said, that the lack of a national consciousness weakens the United States, or represents some sort of flaw or failing.  There are many ways to build a people; nationalism is only one of them and not necessarily the best. As we’ve been discussing, by the first century relatively few Romans could connect to a Roman ethnic or national identity (Livy overflows with alternate Italic identities rooted in different origins and ‘common’ (to them and not the Romans) histories; on that see P. Erdkamp, “Polybius and Livy on the Allies in the Roman Army” in The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476) eds. L. de Blois and E. Lo Cascio (2007). What is clear is that by Livy’s day there was a fairly vibrant literature stressing the heroics of allied contingents in the Roman army, distinguished by their then non-Roman identity, and although such narratives may have had at best a thin relationship with actual events, they speak to the alternative identities newly enfranchised Italians might have held to. That disconnect would only grow greater in the centuries to follow as Roman citizenship spread out of Italy and embraced people who truly had no connection to Rome as a place or the Romans as an ethnic group, but rather connected to the Roman polity as a citizen. Common origin wasn’t the glue that held the Romans together, common citizenship was, collective belonging to a polity which did not require shared ancestry or history.

(As an aside, I suspect this is the reason for another thing Rome and the United States share in common: multiple-choice foundation myths. For a Roman, Aeneas, Romulus, Ti. Tatius, Numa Pompilius, Servius Tullius, and L. Junius Brutus were all options for different sorts of ‘founder figures’ accomplishing different sorts of foundations. A Roman who didn’t much like the (patrician) story of Lucretia could emphasize the (plebian) story of Verginia to much the same effect. C. Mucius Scaevola (a youth, presumably unpropertied given that he is given a land-grant, Liv. 2.13) and P. Horatius Cocles (a patrician) and Cloelia (a patrician woman) provide in rapid series a set of alternative heroes; pick the one you like! Likewise, Americans have shifted emphasis from one framer, hero or founder figure to another; the multiplicity of framers makes it fairly easy, for instance, for Adams and Hamilton’s to come to more prominence lately as compared to say, Jefferson and Madison. Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. share the National Mall with George Washington; pick your monument and the moment of foundation that fills you most with that pride of citizenship. Again, not one common history, but a collection of histories connected to citizenship and the country.)

Successful efforts to actually unify Americans are thus likely to focus not on national identity (which we do not share) but on citizen identity, which we do and which lends itself to many other shared things: an attachment to the country’s laws and stated principles, the documents which set out those principles, the institutions we maintain together and on the community of interest that shared ownership of a polity create.  Those unifying projects, in turn, can only succeed to the extent that citizenship really is held in common; it falters when the citizenship of some Americans is (or feels) only second-rate. But citizenship over nationality has its advantages; the nation is an exclusive identity, but citizenship co-exists more easily with other identities – a necessary advantage in a country as preposterously diverse as the United States. And the emphasis on the citizen body over the nation is clearly a factor in the United States’ exceptional ability to embrace large numbers of immigrants successfully.

And so my country isn’t a nation, but a collection of citizens drawn from all of the nations, setting aside those national identities; a family of choice, rather than a family of blood, united by common ideals rather than common soil. We haven’t always lived up fully to that high ideal. Sometimes the siren call of the nation haws pulled us down away from it. But the ideal and the republic built around it remains. And that is what I will be celebrating come July 4th.

That sums it up pretty well. Nationalism in the United States is mostly an appeal to “crude populism and xenophobia”.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quoting:  But call Americans to war because “your fellow citizens were attacked” and the response is real and emotive. I’ve always suspected this is the same reason for the particular centrality of the United States’ founding documents; we do not all have the founding itself in common, but we do have the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in common because those documents are understood to apply to citizens, regardless of where they fit in one’s ancestry and to guide the country as it exists now

I love that it is the current community that matters, the needs of those surrounding us that bind us (or should) together.  I get the desire to have roots, but looking to the past for our value more than the present and future can cause us to focus on the wrong things.  For example, being more worried about upholding the reputation of the family rather than the happiness of its current members.

I am not particularly patriotic in terms of the rituals and symbols, etc.  Seeing the flag when we crossed the border back into the states typically never stirred my soul, the pledge and national anthem feel only things to endure to be blunt, but this below gets to my heart:

“And so my country isn’t a nation, but a collection of citizens drawn from all of the nations, setting aside those national identities; a family of choice, rather than a family of blood, united by common ideals rather than common soil.”

Edited June 26 by Calm

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are. The United States also isn’t actually a nation by the strict definition: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Note that for most nations that common descent and history is mythical. In the United States we rejected that definition. We don’t have a shared history or ancestry. We are not an ethnostate. We took people from all over. Europeans mingled with indigenous people. You are just as much an American if your ancestors stepped off the Mayflower as you are if you are Korean or Nigerian and showed up last year. This inclusiveness was admittedly very limited at first, filled with conflict, and has an ugly history of being ignored or abused but the aspiration was always there to an extent.

Nationalism in the United States is a poison. It is pretty much inextricably tied to racism and seeing one ethnic group as predominant. This can be explicit or implicit. There might be a kind of condescending paternalistic attitude to other ethnic groups that accepts those who fit in in the right way all the way to xenophobia. Nationalism will destroy the United States as we know it if it is allowed to thrive. Christian Nationalists in the US want a religious ethnostate and to somehow maintain the US’s exceptional status ignoring that they want to be more like many of the other nations on earth. One can hear the cries of the Israelites and the Nephites: “Give us a king!”

Patriotism is an allegiance to the highest aspirational values of your country and allowing other countries the same. Nationalism involves the hatred/envy/contempt of other countries. Nationalism loves symbols. It venerates icons and worship idols while ignoring any meaning behind them. Nationalism says the country is great because we are great. Patriotism is to reach for the good. Nationalism says you are inherently good and all problems are due to the foreign “other” that has poisoned us and/or due to other countries that hold us back or trick us or suppress our rightful place or whatever. For patriots foreign policy is about countries growing better together while dealing with countries that want to halt that progress as best they can. For nationalists foreign policy is a zero-sum game of “might makes right”.

Nationalism leads to war, poverty, and authoritarianism. Patriotism can lead to a better place. A lot of nationalists either in ignorance or malice calls themselves patriots.

Patriotism doesn’t run on hatred or fear. Nationalism does.

Very well said!

I've recently become a British citizen, and now I have two countries for which I can be patriotic! 

The funny thing about nations being ethnostates has in the West gotten much more dilute as of late. The United Kingdom could at one time have been considered more of an ethnostate (or rather four ethnostates: England; Wales, Scotland; and Northern Ireland) than currently. We have a largish admixture of people from Pakistan, India, Nigeria, and other places that used to be British colonies. But still, the vast majority are ethnic British -- and saying this annoys the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish because they like to claim their separateness. On the other hand, if you want to see a true melting pot, come visit London. Brits seem to be in the minority there. 

Edited June 26 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

On 6/26/2025 at 8:41 AM, Stargazer said:

Very well said!

I've recently become a British citizen, and now I have two countries for which I can be patriotic! 

The funny thing about nations being ethnostates has in the West gotten much more dilute as of late. The United Kingdom could at one time have been considered more of an ethnostate (or rather four ethnostates: England; Wales, Scotland; and Northern Ireland) than currently. We have a largish admixture of people from Pakistan, India, Nigeria, and other places that used to be British colonies. But still, the vast majority are ethnic British -- and saying this annoys the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish because they like to claim their separateness. On the other hand, if you want to see a true melting pot, come visit London. Brits seem to be in the minority there. 

In truth the concept of nationhood is mostly manufactured. Most of the French didn’t consider themselves primarily French until nations formed and things like the printing press and stronger centralized governments created the idea that everyone in France was French. There are some states that are more ethnically homogenous such as North Korea but those states tend (generally speaking) to be a regressive mess. Prior to these moves towards a sense of national identity the bulk of the people didn’t much care who was in charge. The local elites cared a lot because they generally wanted to be in charge but the subsistence farmers didn’t care much if their land was conquered since they would probably be living under generally the same taxation scheme. The movie Braveheart got this very wrong. The normal Scotsman didn’t care whether the locals they paid taxes to were English or Scottish and at the time would have been hard-pressed to see much of a difference. 

The idea of a national identity also fragments as often as it unites as can be seen in places like the Balkans and Eastern Europe where states were constantly fragmenting, combining, and breaking apart again along mostly ethnic lines.

In the ancient Mediterranean world a lot more depended on citizenship. The city of Rome was an ethnic mutt of people who lived in and around the city. The key measure of identity was citizenship. Same with the Greek city-states. In general acquiring citizenship was difficult. In Sparta even keeping citizenship could be hard. Then again Sparta was weird, regressive, and was a pretty horrible place to live unless you liked a life of indolence and were lucky enough to be born into the elite.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The normal Scotsman didn’t care whether the locals they paid taxes to were English or Scottish and at the time would have been hard-pressed to see much of a difference. 

Do you mean not every Scotsman hated/disdained the English like I read in books and saw on TV?

Edited June 28 by Calm