Talk:Christian nationalism/Archive 1

Suggested Direction for this Article
This seems like an important topic. But the article is really weak. I can't imagine that there isn't a whole scholarly debate about what Christian Nationalism might mean that isn't reflected in the article being presented.Let's start there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainUnboxed2020 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
User:Webmgr, your edits were reverted by User:NatGertler and I have also reverted them as well. Your contributions are largely sourced to pressure groups critical of an accommodationist position. These would not qualify as reliable sources, nor are they neutral or appropriate to add here. Additionally, the reference to pro-slavery theologians is with respect to the origins of the Christian right, not Christian nationalism. You may want to add the sentence to that article rather than here, as it would be more appropriate there. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead sentences fail verification
The current lead says:

In support, three sources are offered: In short, then, the lead sentences fail verification. Is anyone aware of sources that support the current lead, or do we need to rewrite it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This news report from "religionnews.com" which reports a letter recently published by a group of Christian leaders. This seems to me not to be RS for this content.
 * 2) This opinion piece from Comment Magazine which does not contain the expression 'Christian Nationalism' and thus does not support the content in the lead.
 * 3) This book by Charles Bloomberg, published in 1990, which is about something he calls "Christian-Nationalism" (with a hyphen), which he describes as A systematic body of closely-woven ideas, Christian-Nationalism incorporates (a) the idea of the 'chosen-people-with-a-sacred mission', and (b) the Right's stress on authority, hierarchy, discipline, privilege and elitist leadership, as well as glorification of God, nation, family, blood and the cult of force. It couples this with a rejection of liberalism, Marxism, 'sickly sentimental humanism' and the equality of humankind regardless of race. This seems to me a useful gloss on what he takes "Christian-Nationalism" to be. But, first, is Christian-Nationalism in his sense the topic of this article? Second, his definition says nothing about "focus on internal politics" or "social life" or "ant establishmentarian," and so does not support the current lead sentences in the article.

Additionally, I have checked the rest of the first paragraph, and found that it fails verification as well. Here it is:

In support of this, we are given two sources: Far from failing verification, this sentence in the article seems to actually say the opposite of the sources that it cites! These errors continue into the first section of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This paper which points out that there was a tension between nationalism and the activities of the Crusaders in the holy land, and that the author finds it difficult to trace these feelings of the Crusaders about the Holy Land to the present day, but the author thinks they are likely are still present today in various groups. I don't see that this has anything to do with "Christian Nationalism" but rather has to do with attitudes of Christians toward the Holy Land.
 * 2) An article on "Pan-Christianity" in the Encyclopedia of Nationalism from 1990 that (i) does not mention "Christian Nationalism" and (ii) consistently contrasts nationalism to "Pan-Christianity".

White Christian nationalism
See discussing this new book.The Flag and the Cross:White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller] talk 15:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an astonishingly parochial view of christian nationalism
I don't want to start a flame war, but this article could only have been written by an American almost entirely ignorant of European history. Christian nationalism — in the sense that the nation and its political order derive their legitimacy from Christianity — has been the default setting of European politics since, at the latest, 800AD when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope. The tradition is alive and well in Britain, where Charles III has just been crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the course of a Communion service in Westminster Abbey. But this tradition survived the end of many monarchies. The main conservative (emphatically not fascist) parties of Italy and Germany after WW2 were both called "Christian Democrats". The Republic of Ireland had for most of the twentieth century an explicit commitment to Catholicism in its constitution.

It may be true that in an American context, Christian Nationalism has come to refer to a far-right ideology, although some version of this was entirely mainstream until the Sixties — look at the Pledge of Allegiance — but the world is a very great deal larger than the USA and the article ought at the very least be amended to show that its particular definition is of extremely limited use. Accabrown (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Without debating your central point, the Pledge of Allegiance is odd to invoke in that context, in that the Pledge was only made religious in mid-1954, giving you less than a six year window on America before the Sixties happened. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for making a serious point politely. What I was trying, badly, to express, was that the pledge was not then seen as controversial. It was just a more emphatic restatement of what people vaguely supposed that everybody knew. Admittedly, this came up in the Cold War context where the enemy, to be resisted with military force, was "Godless Communism" — but this conflation of political and ideological rivalry is central to Christian nationalism.
 * The idea of America as a shining city on the hill is entirely derived from Christianity. (see Clifford Longley's "Chosen People" for a short history of this idea.). In any case, I think the entry should be rewritten to broaden the notion out and show that the current usage on the American Left is misleading in a wider context. Accabrown (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Bias
So obviously biased 167.98.135.4 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)