Religious Nationalism in the US

[Twilight Hue]

I support patriotism but not nationalism. Nationalism appears to be the worship of symbols related to one's national identity, and this too easily leads to facism.

Patriotism appears to me to be more of a support for the ideals behind one's national identity, with the idea that change is inevitable and the nation can be improved.

I can see that. Usually for me I see it as being interchangeable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

IMOP In America's 2 party system independents are often people who do actually side with one party but they like enjoying an immunity from scrutiny by their friends of an opposing view. This is especially true if one works in academia where the slightest hint of conservatism could cost one their job and reputation. My wife is a professor at an ivy league school and mildly conservative in some areas, Liberal in others.....but she dare not express ANY view that might hint at conservatism for fear of not getting contract renewals, advancement etc. Academia is the most fascist, intolerant of all the institutions in America!

Yeah, okay. That makes sense at a broad level. I'd see it more as independents feeling like declaring conservative or progressive opinions on some things would result in people as assuming they're conservative or progressive on ALL things, but that's a guess.

I was listening to some research along these lines being explained on a podcast the other day, by a company called Populace you might find interesting.

As groups, Hispanics and independents are the least comfortable sharing their private views in public.

Across demographic groups, Hispanics and Independents have the greatest number of sensitive topics with double-digit gaps between public and private opinion (14 out of 25 issues, although what constitutes “sensitive” is not identical for the groups). In contrast, the groups that have the fewest topics with such gaps are Republicans and Democrats (4 of 25).).

Source : Home — Populace

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I support patriotism but not nationalism. Nationalism appears to be the worship of symbols related to one's national identity, and this too easily leads to facism.

Patriotism appears to me to be more of a support for the ideals behind one's national identity, with the idea that change is inevitable and the nation can be improved.

Along the same lines I tend to be okay with patriotism but not jingoism.
We bundle them together too often.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If it has founding principles based on scripture it's a Christian Nation... Not to be confused with a theocracy, which is what they clearly wanted to avoid.

What are the scriptures you say are "founding principles?" And are you sure that you have understood correctly, whether said "founding principles" and "scriptures" are not just both based on the same obvious truths derived from philosophy and experience?

Because in the latter case, you cannot say that those principles are based on scripture.

 

[Augustus]

No. They came to America to establish a Calvinist Republic on the lines of today's Islamic Republics.
They were OK in England, They were fine in Holland. They were just bothered by all the heathens living apparently successful lives, all around them. It was galling.

Like today's evangelicals, they felt put upon; that there was a "war on Calvinism," So they emigrated to found an intolerant, religious tyranny.

This, the founding fathers wished to avoid.

I'm not sure that what you said is really contradictory with what I said:

By 1617, the congregation was stable and relatively secure, but there were ongoing issues which needed to be resolved. Bradford noted that many members of the congregation were showing signs of early aging, compounding the difficulties which some had in supporting themselves. A few had spent their savings and so gave up and returned to England, and the leaders feared that more would follow and that the congregation would become unsustainable. The employment issues made it unattractive for others to come to Leiden, and younger members had begun leaving to find employment and adventure elsewhere. Also compelling was the possibility of missionary work in some distant land, an opportunity that rarely arose in a Protestant stronghold.[24]

Bradford lists some of the reasons for which the Pilgrims felt they had to leave, including the discouragements that they faced in the Netherlands and the hope of attracting others by finding "a better, and easier place of living", the children of the group being "drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses", and the "great hope, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world

 

[Colt]

Yeah, okay. That makes sense at a broad level. I'd see it more as independents feeling like declaring conservative or progressive opinions on some things would result in people as assuming they're conservative or progressive on ALL things, but that's a guess.

I was listening to some research along these lines being explained on a podcast the other day, by a company called Populace you might find interesting.



Source : Home — Populace

Thanks, I read the report, very interesting and along the lines of what I’ve been discussing.

Money quote:

“One important, but underappreciated, consequence of a culture of censorship is that it can lead individuals not only to self silence, but also publicly misrepresent their own private views (what scholars call preference falsification). It is essential to understand the extent to which people are misrepresenting their views today, because when preference falsification becomes widespread in a society it can result in collective illusions that drive false polarization, erode trust, and hold back social progress.”

 

[The Hammer]

I support Christian nationalism, because I think it is better than the other options.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's why they constantly quoted the Bible...

John Locke was so much significantly influential that Thomas Jefferson plagiarized parts of him. Where do they mention Jesus, the Bible or anything specifically Christian in the Declaration or Constitution?

 

[The Hammer]

The militant anti-theist attitude in todays secularism is just that, its a Godless materialism. Its not merely separation from church and state what we've had for ages, its a separation of religious people from public discourse.

I don't see this at all. There is a rise of anti-theism, in some circles. But I don't see it in the whole of secular discourse, or even representing anything politically. Nothing that I'd consider extreme or harmful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What or which principles?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors...wait, no, our entire economic system is sustainable by coveting to hell out of your neighbors everything.
Love thy neighbor as thsyelf? No, clearly no as America has never loved its neighbors and slavery was allowed to endure for much longer than it did elsewhere. It's not even a suggestion or recommendation.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me isn't one. Nor are prayer or Bible reading. No mandatory tithing, honoring your mother and father or Sabbath adherence either. And no giving thanks and glory to god in all things, and Constitutionally atheists are not fools.
I don't know. It's almost as if they deliberately and purposefully made the nation not based on Christianity.

 

[Kenny]

Prager U?
Come on dude you can do better than that.

So, forget the quotes because you have something against a university?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks, I read the report, very interesting and along the lines of what I’ve been discussing.

Money quote:

“One important, but underappreciated, consequence of a culture of censorship is that it can lead individuals not only to self silence, but also publicly misrepresent their own private views (what scholars call preference falsification). It is essential to understand the extent to which people are misrepresenting their views today, because when preference falsification becomes widespread in a society it can result in collective illusions that drive false polarization, erode trust, and hold back social progress.”

I won't geek out on it here, as it will bore you, but I listened to a podcast where their CEO went through the methods they use to measure public versus private opinion, and it's fascinating.

Way more to it than just surveying people (since they'd then still self censor).
Glad you found it interesting.

 

[Viker]

So, forget the quotes because you have something against a university?

It's not an actual university. It has no academic accreditation.

"Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas." From it's own website

About Us | PragerU

In other words, it's only as credible as the next Joe Smoke with any opinion.

It's also why they, legally, have to use PragerU while giving public presentation. Otherwise, it's usually just more clickbait.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Also in the Declaration of independence: “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and it closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”

These are Christian references and that language that some want to call deist was also used in such Christen documents as the Westminster confession.

 

[Viker]

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Also in the Declaration of independence: “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and it closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”

These are Christian references and that language that some want to call deist was also used in such Christen documents as the Westminster confession.

But it doesn't use God, Jesus or Holy Spirit.

It is deist specifically and has a universal message in general. The Masons use the exact same lingo.

 

[F1fan]

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Also in the Declaration of independence: “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and it closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”

These are Christian references and that language that some want to call deist was also used in such Christen documents as the Westminster confession.

Yeah, I already explained the use of "Creator" as being a push back against the King of England who claimed divine rights over the colonies. By the Founding Fathers asserting they had equal divine rights they had themselves the authority to reject the King and self-govern. Do you see how they would make a religious reference to counter a religious claim?

 

[Polymath257]

That's why they constantly quoted the Bible...

Yes, it was a common social reference. But so were Cicero, Livy, Plato, Locke, and many others.

These were highly educated men that used their cultural inheritance to describe things. They were familiar with the Bible, but also with Greek and Roman mythology. They knew history and were a part of the Western cultural heritage. They freely used references to all of these to get their ideas across.

 

[Polymath257]

If it has founding principles based on scripture it's a Christian Nation... Not to be confused with a theocracy, which is what they clearly wanted to avoid.

No, they formed a thoroughly *secular* nation based on enlightenment values. They used the Bible as a common cultural reference, but also used Roman mythology in a similar way.

Jefferson, for example, wrote a version of the Bible that eliminated all of the miracles. His point was that there were good values to be found if you get rid of the nonsense. This was the *deist* formulation, not the Christian formulation.

 

[Polymath257]

Which only means that Jefferson had some wacky theology at times, not that he wasn't a Christian.

I'm wondering what you think is required to be a Christian. Jefferson did not believe in the supernatural. He did not believe Jesus was an incarnation of God as a man. He did not believe in a personal creator. He believed in a rather vague 'higher being' that only tangentially has commonalities with the Christian conception of God.

 

[Polymath257]

If one is a true atheist then the term "godless" shouldn't be offensive. Societies that want to eliminate the influence of religion or God would be godless and welcome such a label. An ideal Atheist society would eliminate all religious influence as it is seen as a form of mental illness, a relic of the past. They would have their hoped-for godless utopia.

There would still be other forms of ignorance and superstition. Overall, the search for a utopia is misguided: instead we just need to keep doing better as opposed to working towards a delusional end-goal.

I don't mind the term 'godless' as much as I disagree that the goal is a utopia.