…and “racist” and “bigot” and a bunch of other terms? MTG here takes great offense at being called a white supremacist, likening it to a black person being called the n-word, but she has proudly declared herself to be a Christian nationalist, and while I see a semantic difference between the two, is there a shred of real difference? That is, can you imagine someone who says “I am a Christian nationalist, but I will oppose anyone who supports white supremacism” in practice? To my understanding these are two circles that overlap over 99%, making them for all practical purposes one circle.
While there are many black Christians there are not very many Black White Supremacist. So it really comes down to how you define Christian nationalist. You infer that your definition of the two are equal,but others may differ.
From what little I know about “Christian nationalism,” it doesn’t necessarily in theory have anything to do with race.
Yes, weren’t the considered Pilgrams Christian Nationalist by many people who uphold that belief today?
I would agree that in terms of voting there isn’t a meaningful difference between the two, but yes, there’s substantially more in intent otherwise. Granted though, as the Christian Nationalists have become much more militant, there’s been quite a bit of overlap, perhaps a growing overlap at that.
The number of devout individuals of all colors who believe their local preachers and mega churches that “America was founded as a Christian nation” are certainly a fertile audience for the sometimes unspoken (but increasingly not hiding it) “and white” - but in general it’s pointed at newcomers: Latino and Muslim, who are still different and scary to many because they don’t always speak English or are “terrorists” supporting Sharia law!
(not that I believe that, just what they are lead to believe FTR)
So back to the OP, the overlap is far from 99%, but I’m sure that prominent members of both philosophies frequently borrow from the other to support their own point. If you believe America is a Christian Nation, then it was all those White European colonists that brought the True Faith here (ignoring the Catholics that had long since been in North America, because they’re not Americans!).
And if you’re a white supremacist, of course you’re going to claim the mandate of the most successful church(es) in the US to give you the grace of God and divine right, to use the force to remove or enslave in-all-but-name those you consider your inferiors.
ETA - and if you’ve built your base of subscribers/viewers out of such people, you’ll want to appeal to both, but may want to ‘code’ your responses for deniability. Since we (as not part of the groups in general) are likely to see through the code, we may well find such demurrals to be ineffective.
Christian nationalism (the idea that America is a “Christian nation” and should be run on those principles) is enough of a threat to members of minority religions, the non-religious and other liberties without conflating it with white supremacism, though as noted there is some overlap between practitioners of these “philosophies”.
If someone says that they’d be happy enough to see a black preacher become president, and enact law to throw out Muslims and atheists, I have no reason to disbelieve them.
The difference is how they answer the question “Which is worse, non-Christians or non-Whites?”
Genuine question: are there any prominent (or even wannabe prominent) black public figures who refer to themselves as Christian nationalists?
Because I absolutely consider it a synonym for “white supremacist” and have never been presented with anything which has challenged that assumption.
Well there is specifically a “Black Christian Nationalist” movement. But that is clearly very different from what we normally think of as the Christian nationalst movement. It basically sounds like a Christian version of the Nation of Islam with the contention that Jesus was black and sent down specifically to save black people.
Sure there is a difference. There must be a substantial number of white supremacists who don’t care for Christianity. And there are a significant number of Christian nationalists who aren’t white or pro-white-supremacy. Indeed, some of the most fervent people I know in the latter category are Hispanic or Asian.
I believe that there is in fact a Black Christian Nationalist movement/tradition in America. My layperson’s assessment is that it has a lot of ideological overlap with other radical Black movements such as the Nation of Islam and the Moorish Revival folks - just with Christianity as a core factor rather than imagined reversion to “ancestral/African” stuff.
Edit: @Buck_Godot beat me to it by seconds!
Not necessarily. The Creativity Movement, although it called itself a church, was atheistic in nature. Its adherents believed that white people were the source of all creativity in the world, and that the Judeo-Christian God was a phantom “super-spook.”
Hm, I’m not so sure. The main thing that made them Pilgrims rather than Separatists is they believed churches should be independent democratic congregations rather than an arm of a Christian Nation, as the Church of England was at that time. They refused to worship in the official state-mandated way, so they left England for Holland, decided they didn’t like being dutch, and went to America instead.
Christian Nationalists today would be happy to have the arrangement the Church of England had back then, where only official church services were legal and failure to attend church was a crime.
Maybe, but I’m speaking practically here. There might be hundreds or thousands who identify as one and not the other, but if you’re one, you’re very likely going to feel very comfortable with the other.
Remember, the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers kept pretty much apart before January 6th, but I will be damned if I can find an important difference between the two. I’m sure they all define their particular brand of racism differently, stress different “principles” they adhere to, cite different leadership styles, mottos, emblems, but it’s all the same to me.
I’ve not seen any suggestion that the Oathkeepers are barred from masturbating, unlike the Proud Boys.
Yes, but is that difference in policy enough to make the Oathkeepers want to rub out the Proud Boys? I think it just makes them want to lend the Proud Boys a hand, so they can pull it off together.
I laughed too hard & long.
I suspect there’s a significant aspect of the old quote, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” I’m sure if a Black person was to declare themselves a Christian Nationalist, they’d be welcomed with open-ish arms, but the likelihood of such a person existing is pretty low.
Not that I disagree @Northern_Piper, but that’s why in the section before what you quoted I said:
Note the frequently. There are exceptions, just as you cited, but it’s an easy ask for both sides to cater to the ideology of the other.