A Christian Nationalist America
Though freedom of religion is one of the United States’ core tenets, pressure for the mixing of U.S politics and Christian nationalist ideals has begun to seep into social and political space. This raises the question: should we allow religion and politics to mix?
Christian nationalism can vary in definition depending on who is asked, but is broadly defined as an ideology that the U.S was founded as a Christian nation; therefore, it should be a Christian nation today. The idea of a Christian nation has had a great deal of controversy in recent years as it has gained traction. One argument against it is that it directly goes against the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law..."), defying the fundamental American principle of religious freedom. Christian nationalists interpret this clause in an alternative manner, claiming that the founding fathers, when creating the ideals the U.S has built upon, did so with God in mind.
Other sources of controversy come from Christian nationalism’s ties to members of the Republican Party and the fact that the January 6th insurrection had heavy attendance and affiliation from Christian nationalists. However, the main concern with Christian nationalism is that it strips human rights from all social groups that are not white men. This can be seen through the beliefs of Doug Wilson, a pastor and one of the most prominent figureheads for Christian nationalism in the U.S. Wilson has defended slavery, claiming, “There were relationships, other descriptions of slavery times from former slaves, where they looked back on that time wistfully. They loved their masters. They had a great relationship.”
Although Wilson states that the abolition of slavery was “good riddance”, his justification for the existence of any slaves brings forth concern, especially when his influence on a large number of Americans is taken into consideration. Aside from his comments on slavery, Wilson has also made highly controversial statements about the role of women in relationships. He has made statements such as “wives need to be led with a firm hand” and “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Additionally, Wilson has been known to have implemented a voting system within his church that actively suppresses women’s voting rights. This system, rather than allowing everybody to vote for church officials, makes it so that only the head of a household, who is usually male, gets the vote. Wilson also admits to and supports the fact that non-Christian religious groups would decrease significantly with the implementation of his ideals.
Although the possibility of changing the U.S political system into one that wholly encompasses Christian ideals is unlikely, much concern comes from the fact that many high-power government officials have been known to associate with Christian nationalist groups. Mike Johnson, the current speaker for the House of Representatives, has been known to tie in Christian nationalist ideals into his professional career. He publicly stated his belief that the U.S was founded on Christian ideals, saying, “You know, we don’t live in a democracy . . . It’s a constitutional republic. And the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.” This statement from such a powerful member of government, along with Johnson’s hanging of the “An Appeal to Heaven” flag, a symbol closely associated with the Christian nationalist movement, has brought concern that there is a possibility for a fusion of religion and state. Additionally, the U.S Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has made clear his affiliation with Doug Wilson. Hegseth has had numerous public statements about his desire to fuse Old Testament law with civil government, which includes capital punishment for homosexuality and patriarchal family dynamics. Close ties between people with such influence and Christian nationalists who represent segregationist views have been an area of concern.
Hegseth has also co-authored a book, Battle for the American Mind, which focuses on the U.S education system’s takeover by progressive ideals, and how Christian moral foundations need to be reinstated in education systems. By doing so, Hegseth and his co-author David Goodwin argue that this will produce better citizens, who will emphasize virtue, excellence, Western civilization, Christian worldview, logic/reason, and the formation of character. Hegseth, in this book, calls for American parents to reclaim the future and reject a socialist education, shaping the coming generations to live with Christian morals in mind.
Putting aside whether or not a Christian nationalist America is possible, another important question has risen alongside increasing arguments for Christian nationalism: would a Christian Nationalist America be democratic? This question, although complex, can be supported from both sides. Despite the fact that the views of Wilson and similar supporters infringe on the freedom of non-white, male Americans, Wilson firmly insists that Christian nationalist America would still be a democracy. He claims that the U.S was a democracy back in the 1950s, and that all Christian nationalists are doing is reverting America to the state it was before. Although there has historically been a U.S with the views he deems desirable, his claim lacks stability, as it chooses to fixate on implementing U.S standards from over seventy-five years ago without accounting for the social and cultural changes that have happened since. While possible, a reversion to the social ideologies of the fifties would be a significant setback for decades of advocacy for human rights. The loss of human rights that would come with such a step back are numerous, and Wilson does not consider the complexities of social and judicial change within the last seventy-five years.
On the other hand, there are those who claim Christian nationalism is an attack on democracy. The originalists, or those who believe that the constitutional text ought to be given to the original public, meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law, claim nationalism is an attack on democracy. In a paper from the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, author Patrick Sawyer argues that a true originalist interpretation of the Constitution requires a separation between the church and state. Sawyer makes the argument that the tendency for Christian nationalists to incorporate religion with politics is false and dangerous, claiming government financial support for religion is against what the founding fathers had in mind. Utilizing the Supreme Court case Engel v Vitale, Sawyer makes clear that religion has not, and should not have any business in government. His argument solidifies opposition against Christian nationalism from a legal standpoint, as he manages to use concrete evidence to defy the mixing of church and state.
Opposition to Christian nationalism also comes from Christians themselves. They argue that Christian nationalism is not representative of Christian ideals but is rather a means to justify white supremacy and hate. The organization Christians Against Christian Nationalism is one that works to separate Christian nationalists from Christianity as a whole, denying that it is a Christian value to mix religion and politics. On their site, they write, “Christian nationalism uses the veneer of Christianity to advance its own aims – to point to a political figure, party or ideology instead of Jesus.” The discrimination and hate so deeply intertwined with Christian nationalist ideals arguably contravene fundamental tenets of Christianity. The utilization of God to justify domestic terrorism acts like the January 6 insurrection goes against Christianity. Additionally, many Christian nationalists promote ideologies of white supremacist groups. Although Christian nationalists claim that their goal is to unite Christian ideals with American politics, it can be argued that they warp Christianity to support their hate and discrimination. Their claim is presented in a rather innocent manner, but the reality is that Christian nationalists often pick and choose specific ideals to support their causes against immigration, diversity in the country, women’s rights, and overall liberty.
Alongside the negative moral ramifications establishing Christian nationalism would have, a nationalist America could hinder the economy. Because of Christian nationalism’s strong dependence on white male-dominated social hierarchies, women, people of color, immigrants, and members of the LGBTQ+ community would lose power in jobs and decrease utility. Currently, around 41% of the U.S population are from a minority group. Handicapping these groups by forcing them to take a backseat to white men would decrease the economic value of a majority of workers. According to a 2021 article, white, male Americans make up 30% of the U.S population. If society only allows for white men to be the greatest benefactors, it severely disincentivizes growth and innovation from anyone who is not a white man.
Additionally, according to a research paper by the Oxford Academic, most people who identify as Christian nationalists are more likely to believe their income tax is too high, oppose redistributive taxes, and oppose green taxes. Also, “Christian nationalism is significantly and positively associated with opposing green taxes.” If the U.S was a Christian nationalist country, all the proposed tax cuts for wealthier individuals and organizations would significantly decrease federal and state revenue. Seeing as just individual income taxes in the U.S account for 51% of total revenue, or $2.66 trillion, decreasing taxes by even a small percentage would take out a large portion of government funding. This would significantly decrease spending on Social Security, Medicare, national defense, and so much more.
Further, Christian nationalists’ opposition to redistributive taxes would cut out welfare for the poor, widening the already large wealth gap in the country. Economically, the U.S would become a country where only the wealthy are able to thrive. Lastly, by cutting or removing green taxes, the environment would take a hit, decreasing America’s long-term ability to continue production sustainably. Although green taxes are primarily engineered to preserve the environment, they have been shown to increase GDP. A study done by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that China’s tax on carbon emissions could save close to fourteen million lives in fourteen years and raise well over 2% of its GDP, demonstrating that green taxes can increase a nation’s output.
Christian nationalism’s recent prevalence in American politics has caused concern, as a Christian nationalist nation would surely have negative implications for anybody not white and male. Particularly within the political scene, it remains important to rely on the fundamentals of the Constitution, which clearly deny a mixing of church and state, alongside our system of checks and balances. Government officials who try to incorporate Christian nationalism into their positions of power need to be held accountable. A Christian nationalist America would transform the country into a dysfunctional, inefficient nation where women, people of color, those of the LGBTQ+ community, and the poor are severely handicapped for not being born white and male. Although Christian nationalism acts under the pretense of bringing positive, Christian morals, their real aim has not to do with religion, but with hate and discrimination. Although the U.S is by no means perfect, a system in support of Christian nationalism would be working to undo progress, not to make it. The path to a better America is complex, and can be defined in many ways, but Christian nationalism is surely not one of them.
Photo by Brad Dodson on Unsplash
Aaron Moon is a freshman from Los Angeles studying Business and Political Economy at NYU Stern. He loves the intersection of politics and financial markets, and reads the New York Times every morning. In his free time, he loves to indulge in a burger or sit in Washington Square Park to people watch.
