No, they know that racism is a bad word, but with no idea what it actually means. You can’t teach them what the bad thing actually is without pointing out to them that they’re doing a bad thing, because what they’re doing actually is, in truth, bad.
It’s not a Christian thing; it’s a racist thing. And their numbers are significant enough to win national elections.
Which is a sign that the culture that’s a problem isn’t “black culture”. The actual culture problem is Southern culture. African-Americans had their own culture systematically destroyed, and lived in a place where civilized authority really was hostile to them: It’s no wonder that they ended up with that culture. What’s white southerners’ excuse?
“Christian Nationalist” is more palatable from a PR perspective?
I went and looked up Christian Nationalism. Wikipedia defines it as “a type of religious nationalism that is affiliated with Christianity and which primarily focuses on the internal politics of society, such as legislating and laws that reflect their view of Christianity and the role of religion in political and social life.”
Which on the surface would seem to simply describe Christians who actively seek to elect politicians and legislate laws consistent with their values.
In reality, I feel this is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is our country was specifically designed to have a separation of church and state. Religions and people who follow them often operate from a position of privilege and exceptionalism and intolerance. And these don’t seem like particularly tolerant or accepting people. God has chosen them, after all, and who are you to go against the word of God?
So to me it doesn’t seem that far of a trip from “we want a nation built on the Christian values of our forefathers” to “we want a nation built on the Christian values of our WHITE forefathers”.
I’d say “Yes”. Fundamentalists have always existed, but their beliefs tend to be more for themselves. Sure, they think you should agree with them, but historically, they were (mostly) happy just thinking you’d go to Hell if you didn’t.
The Nationalists, though, are all about compelling your adherence to their beliefs. They want to use the power of the State to enforce their rules. And even if their beliefs aren’t “Fundamentalist”, enforcement of any religious beliefs is a problem.
I want to say that the existence of black Christian nationalists show that there isn’t full overlap between these groups.
But thinking about it, a lot of these people will repeat white supremacist talking points despite their own ethnicity. e.g. They likely won’t acknowledge how bad chattel slavery was. So I really don’t think there’s much difference IME.
Well said in my opinion. I grew up in the 1960s-1980s in a Fundamentalist Christian world. As much as I have issues with that culture it was not about forcing others to live a certain way, for the most part at least. The Nationalist/Dominionist types are all about authoritarianism and forcing people to bend to their will and their interpretation of the New Testament.
Asatruar are not the racist kind of Nordic Neo-Pagans, who are usually referred to as Odinists. I’ve known one Black and several Jewish Asatruar; they take grave offense at the stereotype that all Nordic Pagans are racist (as do the White, non-Jewish ones I’m personally acquainted with). Odinists, not so much, from what I know of them.
Take it up with the “new” AFA, the AA, or any of its member kindreds, not me. They call themselves that, not Odinists.
Mostly, AIUI, because they don’t consider themselves monotheists, which is what Odinism implies.
I can see how it looks like I was saying that, and I apologize for giving that impression, but I was speaking specifically about the AFA, which is why I linked to them and not the general Heathenry article.
Are extremist groups of muslim Bosniaks, muslim Albanians, muslim Chechnyans, muslim Turks,etc. also white supremacists by this theophobic logic?
There’s no such thing as a “Christian nationality”.
There’s no such thing as all white extremists or supremacists being christians.
There’s even no such thing as “Christianity” on it’s own, that is just an umbrella term, there is Catholicism, various Orthodox churches, dozens of various Protestant churches,etc. A Serbian orthodox person and a Polish catholic person are technically both christians, but they have little in common, even the most important holidays like Christmas and Easter aren’t on the same day, so how would this woke-scarecrow dystopia of white christianity even function, when there’s dozens of various incompatible churches, whose members often hate each other despite being the same race?
A white supremacist is not necesarily a Christian. Folks that say whites are superior come in all flavors of ehtnicity, religions, and other backgrounds. A person claiming to be a Christian nationalist will claim Christianity as their religion, and say that religion has a say in shaping the law of the land. Not really the same thing, but a Venn diagram of the two groups would find some overlapping opinions.
It must say something about the nature of Christianity if someone who killed as many people over “trifles” as Elizabeth I could say that with a straight face.
AFAIK, and this is likely getting into hijack stuff, most of the Catholics that were executed were killed for attempting to assassinate her, or overthrow the government. Not just for being a catholic. True, you could not hold office, but that didnt kill you.
If we subscribe to the idea that no two people are the same and that we each have our own views, opinions, and politics, then as you head towards extremists - people who are less reasonable about reducing the ideological restrictions on their followers in the aim of attracting a wider audience - then the more fractured that things are going to get, because every individualistic nuance is going to be blown up to 11. If they were willing to bend on whether spoons go on the right or the left of the plate, they wouldn’t be the sort of person willing to start an extremist group.
But, likewise, arguing which side of the plate the spoon goes on is pretty irrelevant to the view of an outsider. To that extremist, sure, it’s the most important thing ever and that other rival group who has all the same beliefs except that one thing - the group who can most easily steal all of the same followers away, because it wouldn’t be a big shift - is the largest of all enemies and clearly, completely different.
I don’t know that we need to pay attention to their trivialities.
I’m sure that there’s some technical difference between Maoism and Stalinism. I’m not really fussed enough about it to play pretend with those guys that those differences are so massive that you can’t lump them together under the heading of “Communists”.
Yes, if they espouse white supremacist views.
This isn’t “theophobic logic” it’s using the correct definition of words.
Correct.
However the term “Christian nationalist” does not mean “citizen of the Christian nation”. It means someone who wants government and/or the judiciary to be explicitly based around Christian principles. And it not only exists but is very popular in the US right now; I can link clips of Republicans saying that there should be no separation of church and state. Or simply, people using religious arguments for why the state should get involved in things like legal acceptance of trans.
Correct again. It’s an umbrella term. What’s wrong with umbrella terms?
Also, the umbrella term being used here is christian nationalist, not merely Christian.
To be more precise, it means someone who wants government and/or the judiciary to be explicitly based around Christian principles as interpreted by their particular sect.