Perhaps “Christian Nationalism, Mormonism and a new law in Idaho”?
I like it! The proposed title, that is. Not the Christian nationalism. 
Done!
Much better title, more reflective of the actual thread content.
There’s a verse in the Qur’an that comes right out and says “Some of these verses have a clear obvious meaning, while others are ambiguous, and only God knows what they mean, so quit arguing over them.”
It’s that one, thank you.
Coming into the thread rather late:
Eventually they’ll eat each other’s faces, also. That’s where these things wind up, if not stopped.
Which won’t really be any comfort or use to those whose faces got eaten first.
– They’re looking for safety, in trying to make everybody, or at least everybody with any power, be like them. But there is no safety there. The only protection for any religious belief is to protect all of them. (Short of actually trying to sacrifice the neighbors, of course. But that’s nearly always a libel.)
Consider how that fashion of using the word “Christian” comes across to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, members of hundreds (at least) of other religions still managing to exist in this world, agnostics, atheists, and whoever I’ve managed to leave out.
I grant that it’s often not consciously mean-spirited. But the underlying sense, if you mean what I think you mean by “considering how people use the word Christian” is ‘somebody doing something good must be a Christian’ – or, in other words, ‘anybody not a Christian must be Bad’.
Yup, that’s how some people use the word “Christian”.
And yes, it’s offensive.
That’s not how “religion” works. That’s how some specific versions of religion work. There are plenty of religions that don’t work that way; including some versions of Christianity.
Tell that to any Black person murdered in much of 20th century USA. Or sometimes since.
Or to a hell of a lot of other people who have either had a law selectively enforced on them, or been unable to get a law enforced on somebody who’s wronged them, despite the way in which the law was written.
The law may well have a precise written definition. But if the judge and/or jury and/or whatever official has to bring charges doesn’t like that precise meaning – that’s not what will happen. To some extent that’s what appeals courts are for – but if enough of the society agrees with the judge and/or jury and/or the official bringers (or non-bringers) of charges, chances are the appeals courts will also.