Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America E5: Altar-ing the Constitution - Christian Nationalism's Rewrite

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

Can Christian nationalism coexist with American democracy, or is it a threat to the very foundation of our nation? Join us for a compelling discussion on "After America" as we tackle these urgent questions. This episode kicks off with an in-depth analysis of Mike Johnson's rise to Speaker of the House and how his Christian nationalist views are shaping the legislative landscape. We discuss the erosion of the separation of church and state, exploring how Johnson's leadership might be steering the country towards authoritarianism.

We unravel the historical intertwining of evangelicalism and conservative politics. From the televangelism boom driven by figures like Pat Robertson and James Dobson to the influential Moral Majority founded by Jerry Falwell, we trace the path that has aligned evangelical Christians with the Republican Party. We delve into the consequences of this alliance, from Reagan's judicial appointments to the overwhelming support for Donald Trump, illustrating how a desire for traditional values has paved the way for more authoritarian leadership.

Finally, we discuss the rise of militant Christian nationalism and its alarming impact on American society. We dissect the process of online radicalization, the normalization of extremist rhetoric, and the unsettling intersection of Christianity and right-wing extremism. We also examine the broader implications, including mass deportations and the undermining of democratic institutions. Don’t miss this episode as we contemplate whether contemporary evangelicals can find harmony with their secular neighbors amidst a politically charged landscape.

Guests: Dr. Bernard Schlager, Dr. David Gushee, Dr. Tara Grove, Dr. Alice Marwick, Dr. Shalu Nigam

Credits:
Infados - Kevin MacLeod
Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

After a contentious, weeks-long succession battle following Speaker Kevin McCarthy's ouster on October 25th 2023, mike Johnson was sworn in. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives, johnson, a relatively obscure figure outside his home state of Louisiana and even within the House itself, had ascended to one of the most powerful positions in American government. Known for his quiet demeanor and conservative principles, johnson had maintained a relatively low profile during his tenure in Congress. At the time, johnson's deep-rooted Christian nationalist views were not widely recognized or scrutinized. While his faith was evident, the extent to which it influenced his political ideology and policy preferences had not been fully explored by the media or his colleagues. Johnson's background included a strong commitment to evangelical Christianity, which he often intertwined with his legislative priorities, advocating for policies that reflected his belief in America as a fundamentally Christian nation. In fact, johnson has stated that his faith informs every decision he makes, that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that United States laws should reflect faith in God's guidance, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, that schools should teach the importance of faith and morality and that life begins at conception and that our laws should protect that. This ideological underpinning would later come to light as Johnson began to shape the legislative agenda and, as such, his tenure has seen a growing alignment between his Christian nationalist views and his policy initiatives, reflecting a vision of governance heavily influenced by his religious convictions. As Johnson took the oath, the full implications of his worldview were yet to unfold, but they're becoming more clear, and he's got allies in other key positions in the United States government that are advocating for even implementing laws that favor Christians over others. That's not good for those of us that respect a church-state divide and it's not good for democracy. If he gets what he wants, that's the end of American democracy as we know it. So what does a theocratic United States even look like? Welcome to After America. I'm your host, s C Fettig. Find, follow and like. Deep Dive with Shawn C Fettig on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube, and check back every Sunday through September for new episodes of After America as we examine the precarious state of American democracy, how we got here and where we might be headed. The clock is ticking. Democracy is at a crossroads and the time to act is now.

Shawn:

Christian nationalism is a political ideology that seeks to merge Christian and American identities, asserting that the United States is fundamentally a Christian nation. It advocates for the integration of Christian beliefs into public policy and government, often emphasizing conservative Christian values. It promotes a vision of the United States that prioritizes the interests and values of Christians, often conflating patriotism with religious identity. Proponents argue that America's founding principles are rooted in Christianity and seek to preserve these ideals in law and culture. In practice, it undermines the separation of church and state, marginalizes non-Christian citizens, promotes an exclusionary and often discriminatory vision of national identity, fosters division and undermines democratic principles. According to research conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in 2023, 30% of the United States population adheres to or sympathizes with Christian nationalism. This number jumps to 40% when isolating it to just the red states and drops to 22% in the blue states. 55% of Republicans hold Christian nationalist views, compared to 16% of Democrats. Fully 72% of Christian nationalists agree that, because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.

Shawn:

Episode of After America. The fact that this overwhelmingly benefits Republicans, who have embraced evangelicalism and right-wing extremism, who are overrepresented in the House, the Senate, in the Electoral College which determines the presidency and, increasingly, on the Supreme Court, means that Christian nationalism, a minority ideology in the United States is poised to significantly remake the religious, political, social and even economic lives of the rest of us, and in oppressive, discriminatory and authoritarian ways. In this episode of After America, we're going to examine Christianity, particularly evangelicalism, in the United States, how it has evolved from a religion concerned with social justice to embracing populist and xenophobic appeals from non-Christian figures like Donald Trump, how they want to dismantle American democracy and what we might all be in for if they succeed. Religion profoundly influenced early American colonies, especially through the Puritans, who fled religious persecution in England to create a theocratic society in America. Their strict moral code, emphasis on discipline, hard work and communal responsibility, shaped New England colonies and American society for centuries. Internal conflicts arose from their belief in predestination and religious conformity, leading figures like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson to advocate for religious freedom, ultimately founding Rhode Island as a haven for dissenters.

Shawn:

Despite strong religious movements, the Founders ensured the separation of church and state when crafting American government. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Article 6 of the Constitution states that no religious test shall be required for any public office, preventing discrimination based on religious beliefs in public service. The framers' commitment to separation was influenced by historical context, philosophical ideals and practical governance concerns. They were aware of Europe's history of religious persecution and conflicts such as the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War, where states supported churches, suppressed religious minorities. Colonies like Massachusetts, with strict Puritan laws, and Rhode Island, founded as a haven for religious dissenters, highlighted the dangers of intertwining government with religion. Philosophically, the Framers believed in religious freedom as a fundamental right. James Madison, in 1785, wrote that religion should not be subject to government interference, a view that was echoed by Thomas Jefferson's call for a wall of separation between church and state. And practically, the Framers aimed to avoid the sectarian strife that could destabilize the new nation by ensuring government neutrality in religious matters.

Shawn:

The United States, even in the 18th century, was religiously diverse. The Framers aimed to create a society where individuals of all faiths or none could coexist peacefully, ensuring stability and growth. This separation allowed religion to flourish without fear of government oppression, establishing a body unconcerned with religious favor. Prior to the 1960s, religion in the United States was prevalent, but largely operated on a separate track from government, outside of politics, and when they did intersect, religion was typically focused more on social reforms than it was on religious victimhood.

Shawn:

In the early 1700s, there was a transformative religious revival in America, marked by emotional preaching, an emphasis on personal faith that promoted personal repentance and conversion, democratizing Christianity and challenging established church structures. It led to the growth of denominations like Baptists and Methodists and fostered a shared American identity, influencing future religious and social movements. In the early 19th century, religion focused on personal salvation through large emotional revivals. It inspired social reform movements such as abolition and temperance and women's rights, emphasizing individualism and moral responsibility. Industrialization and urbanization. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries diversified American Christianity. Early 20th centuries diversified American Christianity, introduced largely by immigrants and leading to new denominations. During this era, evangelicals applied their religious principles across a diverse range of social issues, primarily championing progressive causes and advocating for social justice and creating service organizations. According to Dr Bernard Schlager, an expert on medieval Christianity and a professor of historical and cultural studies at the Pacific School of Religion, this political diversity among evangelicals allowed them to exert considerable influence across the social and political landscape, advocating for reforms that aligned with their moral and religious convictions.

Dr. Schlager:

It is true that, you know, in the first half of the 20th century, evangelical Christians by and large did not see themselves that they should have a very obvious role to play in politics. It didn't mean that they didn't vote, because they did vote, but politics was something separate. To be a good Christian meant to live a moral, upright life, and it was not allied with any particular party in the way it became that, and I think the gay rights movement, to use a short term for it, did spark in many parts of evangelical Christianity in the United States a concern that the moral foundations of the nation were crumbling. And so to take Anita Bryant right as a spokesperson of sorts for evangelicals, especially in the southern part of the United States, they saw that they had a role to play in reforming US society, and that's something that Christians have done throughout US history, right the temperance movement, anti-slavery movement, and this was seen to be a moral crisis that called upon Christians to become involved in politics in a way that hadn't been true before, and they found that way in really through.

Dr. Schlager:

I think, ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell right, speaking about Reagan as the candidate for a true Christian that Reagan would help to reform this morally corrupt society this certainly was an argument, I think, during the Falwell-Anita Bryant years is that we have these highly sexualized others in society who are a threat to our children, but a threat to society at large, and we have to fight back.

Dr. Schlager:

We have to prevent the continuing moral degradation of society, and queer people became a signal or a sign or an emblem for this. And it's interesting, you know, thinking about immigrants, the way in which they are being portrayed by many people on the right is that they are a threat to our society. They are raping women. They are, you know, killing women and children. They are taking our jobs away. They are diluting what it means to be American. You know the whole kind of spiel that is front and center in the Republican National Convention platform, right, and it's building upon these fears of the other. And I think what has happened now at this point is that there is such an alliance now between Trump and many more conservative Christians, including Catholics, including more conservative members of Jewish movements, that see Donald Trump as a necessary deliverer and I don't want to use the word savior, although I think there might be temptation to use that word by some who is going to set the United States back on its right course, on its Christian course.

Shawn:

The cultural upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s awakened evangelical Christianity in America and created a new strain leading to a conservative backlash and a more politically unified evangelical movement. Several key events in social movements during this period profoundly affected American society and the evangelical response. The civil rights movement aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination and, while some evangelicals supported civil rights, others were uneasy with the rapid social changes and the perceived negative impact on white communities. The sexual revolution brought shifts in societal attitudes towards sexuality, gender roles and family structures, challenging traditional evangelical views. The feminist movement, which sought gender equality, led to debates within evangelical communities about women's roles.

Shawn:

The Vietnam War sparked widespread anti-war protests and civil unrest, further polarizing society, and many evangelicals were conflicted about the war, torn between patriotic support and concerns over its moral implications. The conservative response, culminating in the silent majority, a term popularized by President Richard Nixon, sought to defend traditional values against sweeping social changes. Evangelical leaders mobilized this backlash, framing their opposition to civil rights, the sexual revolution and anti-war protests as a defense of Christian values and American traditions. This is Dr David Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and author of numerous books, including Defending Democracy from Its Christian Enemies, explaining why evangelicals may have been susceptible to populist and authoritarian appeals.

Dr. Gushee:

There were some structural problems from the beginning with fundamentalism and then with evangelicalism that came out of fundamentalism the theology tended to be kind of thin. They were trying to build a big tent that could put together people from multiple different denominations as well as non-denominational churches and build a big umbrella movement and to do that they had to keep the theology relatively thin and the social ethics, I think, relatively undeveloped. So never in evangelical faith statements, say, was anything ever articulated related to the church's relationship to the state, or very little Anyway, this didn't happen very often. The church's relationship to the state, or very little Anyway, this just didn't happen very often. The church's relationship to the state or the church's relationship to national identity. So it was undeveloped theologically. It was also cut off from the developing theological tradition that was happening on the mainland Protestant side, on the Catholic side as well, that was reflecting on these things. So they were not listening to, like what Vatican II said about church, state or democracy, or they were not listening to the statements coming out of the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches or the ethicists and theologians who mainly came. I mean I'm an ethicist, I mean they mainly came from the mainline Protestant side and the Catholic side, not to mention the Orthodox of course. They have their own separate story.

Dr. Gushee:

So they were under-resourced, under-informed, cut off, partly because fundamentalism was already a kind of an insular community. Evangelicalism was not much less insular. Evangelicalism was not much less insular. And they didn't realize in the US how you might say white male, middle class American conservative they actually were. This is what a lot of the critical scholarship is now unpacking. They define themselves theologically and they seem to genuinely believe that what set them apart was their doctrinal distinctives or maybe their heartfelt personal piety. In that way they overestimated how different their beliefs were from, say, the Catholic Church or mainland Protestants and they underestimated how much they were affected by their social location, by being Southern or Midwestern or whatever, americans of a certain generation with a certain set of assumptions about race and gender and nation and so on. So when the temptation developed to go hardline nationalist or populist or xenophobic or whatever, they were theologically and morally unprepared and, you might say, sociologically kind of naive about themselves.

Shawn:

The rise of televangelists like Pat Robertson and James Dobson used television to spread conservative messages. This is Dr Gushee again explaining how televangelism and megachurches evolved and incorporated politics into church life.

Dr. Gushee:

The entrepreneurial nature of evangelicalism has been one of its most striking features. Evangelicalism has been one of its most striking features because if you're not going to work with existing structures like the National Council of Churches or denominational structures as much, or the Catholic hierarchy or the intellectual superstructure created in those communities, then you're kind of making it up as you go along, and people of charisma and entrepreneurial spirit who know how to build you might say, build the brand, build the business can become fabulously successful in this world, the evangelical world, and so like. One development, for example, that has definitely changed evangelicalism is the rise of the megachurches of multiple thousands of people, usually created by a single charismatic founder who had a message and a vibe and a style that people liked in that region and built an astonishing apparatus of, you know, religious power and influence. So people like Rick Warren in California or Bill Hybels in Chicago or Andy Stanley now here in Atlanta, joel Osteen in Houston and several dozen others, huge arenas filled with people. When modern evangelicalism was founded that really didn't exist. You had Billy Graham, who could fill arenas with his evangelistic crusades, but not churches.

Dr. Gushee:

I don't think there were megachurches at that period. I may be wrong, I don't think so, though. So I think that the already thin evangelical theology sometimes got thinner as these entrepreneurs were working on messaging that would attract the masses. Just as, an example, bill Hybels in Chicago emphasized seeker-sensitive Christianity, which and I was in a church like that for a decade it basically meant we're going to try to communicate everything in a way that people can understand and strip out a lot of the religious jargon. So that took an already thin theology and helped to make it thinner. We're not going to initiate you into our tradition. We're going to essentially strip down our tradition so you can understand it, or at least understand some tiny piece of it, and come join us. Also, a pragmatism, whatever works, is what we'll do. You know became pretty deep in evangelicalism. Now there were always the more doctrinaire evangelicals who didn't like these developments, people who were more about doctrine, about Calvinism or some version of evangelical theology, but they've now had to compete in the open market with the big-time non-denominational Bible churches or charismatic churches or Pentecostal churches.

Dr. Gushee:

As a former evangelical myself, I don't think there's any doubt that the unregulated, unmanaged and, I dare to say, undisciplined environment of evangelical church life helped to make evangelicals vulnerable to populism, nationalism, racism, xenophobia, because there wasn't anybody above them saying no, you're crossing lines here. No, this is dangerous. Read this book instead, read this document instead. There were no bishops saying no, that's unorthodox or no, that's dangerous or no. We have a faith statement that says you can't say that. None of that was there.

Dr. Gushee:

So, without any disciplinary structure or doctrinal structure, much certainly not in ethics. They were vulnerable, you might say, to Trumpist capture, just like the Republican Party proved vulnerable, just kind of roll over and play dead. And I think that has kind of happened with a lot of evangelical churches as well and people, just general folks. I would also say recent, very recent polling seems to indicate that Trump and the embrace of Trump has changed even how some people define themselves. In other words, you'll see polling where people will say I'm evangelical. They'll check the box. If you ask them do you go to church? They say no, not much, we're not really. What do you believe? I'm not so sure, but they define as evangelical, which in their mind now just means Trumpist, reactionary, conservative, basically In 1979, jerry Falwell, a prominent Baptist minister, founded the Moral Majority, a political organization that became pivotal in American politics.

Shawn:

This marked a significant moment in mobilizing evangelical Christians as a powerful political bloc. Falwell and other conservative evangelical leaders recognized the potential for a unified evangelical movement to influence national politics. Responding to the social and cultural changes of the 60s and 70s, the moral majority advocated for traditional Christian values opposing abortion, supporting school prayer and promoting traditional family values. Falwell aimed to restore America's Christian heritage and resist secularization. His charismatic leadership and effective use of media, including television and radio, played a crucial role in the Moral Major majority's success, reaching and galvanizing a wide audience. The organization also formed strategic alliances with other conservative groups, including Catholics, mormons and Orthodox Jews, expanding its influence in creating a broad-based conservative movement. This mobilization of evangelicals was about reacting to cultural changes and building lasting political influence. Evangelical leaders began forging alliances with the Republican Party, sharing a commitment to conservative social values and opposition to liberal policies. Dr Gushee discusses this early movement and how it has evolved.

Dr. Gushee:

I mean, I say in my book, it would be a kind of a Christian state, maybe quasi-authoritarian, at least in terms of the moral regulations of the state. But what they want is, as you said, for the world to look like their values, at least for this country to look like their values. What they believe, rightly or wrongly, is that the country wants to look like their values and so it's a reconquista kind of ideology. Let's take it back. And if this could be done by democratic means, all the better. And in fact I would say that that was the original strategy of the Christian right.

Dr. Gushee:

Jerry Falwell, pat Robertson, cozy up to Ronald Reagan and his successors and win the Republican Party and then have the Republican Party win elections and get your goals. You know that way. But I think that it's the failure of that strategy over, say, 50 years from the early 60s until Trump, that left them open to a more authoritarian figure who would say well, essentially, you know, I don't need to play by those rules, I play by my own rules. And they'll say well, that's fine, we need a tough guy who will finally win for us. So I think they've been seduced towards authoritarianism. Would have been perfectly happy to live in a democracy if the democracy was yielding the results that they wanted.

Shawn:

Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in 1980 capitalized on the discontent with the economic struggles and perceived moral decline of the 1970s. Reagan promised to restore American greatness, strengthen the economy and uphold traditional values. His positions on key issues such as opposition to abortion, support for school prayer and a strong stance against communism resonated with evangelical voters, and evangelical leaders, including Falwell and Pat Robertson, endorsed Reagan, recognizing him as a candidate who would champion their values. The Moral Majority and other conservative evangelical organizations mobilized their followers to support Reagan, organizing voter registration drives, rallies and media campaigns.

Shawn:

Reagan's election in 1980 was an important moment with regard to the relationship between evangelical Christianity and the Republican Party. His administration welcomed evangelical support and incorporated their perspectives into policy decisions, championing pro-life policies and traditional family values. Reagan's public opposition to abortion and his promise to appoint conservative judges endeared him to evangelical leaders and voters. His administration promoted policies supporting the nuclear family structure and opposed the cultural shifts of the previous decades. One way in which Reagan wove evangelicalism into the fabric of American governance is a way that is one reflected in the federal judiciary most visibly the Supreme Court today and two dramatically altered a norm how we select and confirm judges, politicizing the process in ways that undermine and threaten democracy. Dr Tara Grove, an attorney who spent four years with the US Department of Justice and now the Vinson Elkins Chair in Law at the University of Texas School of Law, describes this.

Dr. Grove:

One can look at what led up to 2016 and understand what happened with respect to the Merrick Garland nomination and yet still think it was an extremely bad thing for the United States Supreme Court.

Dr. Grove:

So for a few decades leading up to that time, there had been extraordinary fights and growing fights over the federal judiciary, primarily the lower federal judiciary, but you could see it kind of bubbling out to the US Supreme Court. So during the Reagan administration, ronald Reagan said when he ran for president that he was going to appoint judges who would believe in certain important issues, including opposition to abortion and religion and other sorts of values that Reagan viewed as really important. Up until that time, there have been some fights over the lower federal judiciary, particularly after Brown versus the Board of Education, but there had not been many outside of the civil rights era and the Senate started to realize wait, reagan's appointed a lot of really young people with whom we don't totally agree and you saw some fights over the federal judiciary. During that time. They were still most judges still got confirmed, but you could see the fights bubbling up.

Shawn:

Reagan's appointment of conservative judges, including Antonin Scalia, to the federal judiciary reflected his administration's commitment to interpreting the Constitution in line with evangelical values. These appointments had long-lasting effects, shaping the legal landscape in ways that supported evangelical priorities for decades, solidifying a bond between evangelicals and the Republican Party that continues today. The alignment between evangelicals and the Republican Party has only strengthened, particularly on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, and framed debates within an us-versus-them framework that has become a dominant force in evangelical Republican politics today. Dr Schlager explains this.

Dr. Schlager:

I think another aspect that I think about perhaps this comes from my own perspective as someone who's focused mostly on medieval Christianity in Western Europe is there is a tradition in Christianity, as in other religions, of demonizing the other and that other changes throughout time. Right, some people would argue that women, by and large in ancient Christianity and into medieval Christianity, were seen as the other. They're not men, they're not fully human, they are less than you know perfect when it comes to what we call gender identity, that men because Christ was a man, men are in fact have greater privileges within Christianity. But we know from the long history of the church for centuries Jewish people have been deemed. The other Scholars have pointed to the Gospel of John and said that already there you know where the Jews are described as the devil or their father is the devil. They have been otherized and seen as enemies, and we know that this is true with people considered heretics, sex workers, lepers, and the term sodomite those who are understood, and that was a very broad term in the medieval church eventually becomes reified in what we think of people who have sex with other people from the same gender.

Dr. Schlager:

There is this tradition of demonizing the other, and so, as I understand it, I'm not a historian of American history, I'm a US citizen, so how I understand this fervor, as it aligns with, say, for instance, more conservative forms of Christianity that are alive today in the United States is identifying queer people and, especially lately, trans people as the other. They are threatening us. They are as big a threat to the American dream understood largely, I think, the dream of white people as immigrants are, and they are a danger to us and we need to purify society, and they are a danger to us and we need to purify society. So I think that fervor has deep roots in Christianity that can be called upon and has been in fact.

Shawn:

Throughout the Reagan presidency and beyond, evangelical voters became a crucial constituency for the Republican Party, influencing its policy platforms and primary elections. Opposition to abortion became a central tenet of the Republican platform, cementing evangelical support for the party. This dynamic was evident in the 2000 presidential election, when George W Bush secured the Republican nomination and subsequently won the presidency with strong evangelical support. Bush, who openly spoke about his Christian faith and moral values, was able to connect with evangelical voters on a personal level. His policies, including the promotion of faith-based initiatives and opposition to embryonic stem cell research, reflected the priorities of his evangelical base.

Shawn:

The continued alignment of evangelicals with the Republican Party also influenced the broader political discourse in America. Issues such as school prayer, religious displays in public spaces and the role of religion in public life became contentious points of debate. Evangelical leaders and organizations frequently engaged in legal battles and public advocacy to protect what they saw as their religious rights and to resist the secularization of society. The 2016 presidential election, in which Donald Trump received overwhelming support from evangelical voters about 81% of white evangelical Christians highlighted the enduring influence of evangelicals within the Republican Party, despite serious concerns about Trump's history, character and commitment to Christian values. Dr Schlager explains this.

Dr. Schlager:

Yeah, you know the way in which I've kind of, you know, tried to struggle with. How can it be that so many self-repressed Christians have followed? You know a former president, who will now be the nominee for the Republican Party, who seems so unchristian in the way he treats women, in the way he has, according to you know what courts have decided been practiced. You know business practices that are less than ethical. And how can Christians ally themselves with someone who has so clearly been not living according to what one would think of as Christian principles? And this might seem like a tangent, but I had a eureka moment when a good friend of mine a couple of years ago mentioned to me the ways in which some evangelical Christians think of Trump as a modern day Cyrus. So Cyrus was a Persian king. It's written about especially in the Hebrew Testament, in the book of Isaiah, who, in what is the sixth century before the common era, conquered Babylon, which enabled the Israelites, the Jews, to return to Israel and build their temple. So no one, the Jews, did not think Cyrus was a moral individual, but he delivered them according to the will of God and increasingly, having heard about this a number of years ago, I've kept my ears attuned to it so that many more conservative Christians understand Trump that way. Yes, he may not live an upright moral life, but he has been sent by God as a tool for deliverance. That's how I try to wrap my head around a fair number of Christians in this country, head around a fair number of Christians in this country seeing Trump as their candidate and as their deliverer and as someone who's doing the will of God. You know, he may not have a tidy moral life, but he's created a very conservative Supreme Court attacked and collapsed Roe v Wade, and I think, as we look at that Project 2025, the 20 or so items that they list in there on the platform are very clear in terms of what they believe with regard to queer people.

Shawn:

Trump's presidency, which really marked the intersection between Christianity and authoritarianism, led to the justification of undemocratic actions.

Shawn:

During this time, there were aggressive efforts to appoint conservative judges, restrict abortion access and promote religious freedom, further reinforcing the Evangelical Republican Alliance, and Trump's rhetoric framed political opponents as enemies of Christianity and American values, equating support for him with defending Christian America. This redefinition justified actions traditionally seen as undemocratic or authoritarian, and evangelical supporters often invoked religious language to rationalize these actions. A notable example was the evangelical support for Trump's claim of a stolen 2020 election. Despite a lack of evidence, many evangelicals believed this narrative, justifying actions like the January 6th Capitol insurrection, when rioters carried Christian symbols and invoked religious rhetoric, putting a spotlight on the fusion of faith and authoritarianism. Beyond being passive recipients of evangelical-friendly initiatives and policies, evangelicals have taken an active role in shaping the Republican platform, advocating for policies that align with their values. During Trump's presidency, especially, evangelicals pressed an agenda and the Trump administration delivered on many fronts. Evangelicals strongly advocated for the appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary and Trump delivered, appointing Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Evangelicals reframed church-state separation as prioritizing, protecting religious folks from any government intervention supporting policies that would allow religion to proliferate in all aspects of American life, while advocating against policies that would be limiting. Evangelicals have advocated for school choice policies, including support for charter schools and voucher programs that allow public funding to be used for private, often religious, education. Evangelicals have influenced the Republican Party's stance on queer rights, advocating for policies that align with their traditional views on marriage and gender, and evangelicals have also impacted US foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel. As the 2024 election approaches, the evangelical influence in the Republican Party remains strong, as they push for candidates who promise to uphold conservative principles, oppose queer rights and support school choice initiatives. One example of what their policy priorities are and how they intend to remake American democracy into a Christian theocracy can be found in Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda developed by a coalition of right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups, including the Heritage Foundation. It aims to outline a comprehensive policy framework for the next conservative administration. The project emphasizes policies that align with evangelical values, such as defending religious freedom, opposing abortion and promoting school choice. It also addresses issues like deregulation, limiting the administrative state and reinforcing traditional family structures. By creating a detailed policy blueprint, project 2025 aims to ensure that conservative principles are implemented effectively and swiftly if a Republican candidate wins the 2024 election, providing a roadmap for the first 180 days of the new administration, detailing which executive orders and regulations should be prioritized for immediate action. This initiative shows the proactive steps taken by evangelicals and their allies to shape the Republican agenda and how deeply they've embedded themselves in American political life.

Shawn:

It's important to note that this hasn't just been a one-way relationship. It is reciprocal and symbiotic. While evangelicals have significantly influenced and reshaped the Republican Party, the party has also shaped evangelical priorities. This dynamic has resulted in a primary focus on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, which have become moral litmus tests for political candidates seeking evangelical support. This intense focus often overshadows other aspects of Christian teaching, such as care for the poor, social justice and environmental stewardship, aligning evangelical Christianity closely with conservative social positions and the Republican Party's platform. This political relationship between the Republican Party and evangelicalism isn't the whole picture. There is a third prong to this new dynamic in American politics, and that's right-wing extremism. This is where you typically see Christian nationalism, or white Christian nationalism, really on display.

Shawn:

Christian nationalist rhetoric has significantly influenced right-wing militia groups and extremists in the United States.

Shawn:

Groups like the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters use Christian nationalist language to justify their actions, portraying their causes as divine mandates.

Shawn:

This framing imbues their activities with a sense of divine purpose and moral righteousness. Prominent figures in the broader right-wing extremist movements, such as Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon, who are now power players within the mainstream Republican establishment, also employ religious language to legitimize their ideologies, galvanizing support among Christians who might otherwise hesitate to engage in violent and extremist activities. Right-wing extremist groups also employ Christian language and values in recruitment and radicalization processes. They often target conservative Christian communities, exploiting their beliefs to draw them into radical ideologies. They present extremist views as extensions of legitimate religious concerns, easing the transition from mainstream conservatism to extremism. The radicalization process involves identifying grievances about religious freedom, moral decay and threats to traditional values, amplifying these concerns with Christian nationalist rhetoric. This framing creates a sense of moral panic, convincing individuals that their religious and cultural identity is under siege. And the process of radicalization itself is actually a very sophisticated one Dr Alice Marwick, professor of media and technology studies at UNC and co-director of the Center for Information Technology and Public Life describes this process.

Dr. Marwick:

I'm actually really critical of the layperson's model of online radicalization, because it seems to suggest that you have this young person they get on the internet, they get exposed to extremist content, they take on extremist ideas and then, in the worst cases, they commit acts of political violence, whether it's like a shooting or participating in January 6th or something like that. I think this is not really the way that media works, and I donright ideas online in the same way that they get into anything else online, from you know a new workout routine to a fandom. You get exposed to ideas. You maybe dig into those ideas a little bit more, you research them, you learn the lingo in a community. You join like a subreddit or you know a telegram channel, and this can kind of take place over a period of years and gradually you get socialized into a community. You take on the way that community thinks about things, the way they think about meaning, the emotions they experience, emotions they experience and you end up with these people who have very strong beliefs that they believe are justified because they've gathered evidence to support those ideas or they've been in communities where people are sharing evidence that supports those ideas.

Dr. Marwick:

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about, for example, white nationalist communities is it's just people spewing hate with nothing to back it up. In a lot of the communities I studied, people are sharing books, they're sharing academic papers. I mean, if you're looking for evidence of racist thought, there's sort of a whole canon of like European thought behind that right. People are reading books that are a hundred years old. They're reading books by Pat Buchanan. They're passing around PDFs of Gone with the Wind and of discredited scientific papers, and so they're able to sort of justify their hateful beliefs by saying look, this is based on evidence. And it's the same way that a conspiracy theorist or a QAnon will say well, I have all this evidence for it, right, like I've watched all these YouTube videos, or you've read this paper, or I read this book or I listen to this podcast about it, or I read this book or I listen to this podcast about it.

Dr. Marwick:

And because we are in this time where there's so much disdain for institutional expertise, you get these groups of people who are kind of doing their own research, without any tethering to best practices or institutional knowledge-making, and they're creating their own archives, their own canon of information that supports their beliefs. And I think if we think about online radicalization in that way, we can see that it's a lot more complicated than just blocking off access to YouTube videos, like. I definitely think that people who are spewing hate should be deplatformed. I think the fewer people that are exposed to that type of stuff the better. But I think unless we address the fact that people believe that these beliefs are justified, I think it's very hard to counter them.

Shawn:

Extremist groups co-opt mainstream religious and political language, blurring the lines between conservatism and extremism. This blurring has profound implications for political and social cohesion, creating a polarized environment that undermines democratic institutions and processes, and making it extremely difficult to distinguish between legitimate political discourse and extremist views that sometimes cleverly, sometimes not incite violence, and this isn't speculative. This is already playing out. One notable example of the dangerous intersection between Christianity and right-wing extremism is the rise of militia groups like the Patriot Movement, a loose affiliation of militia groups and extremists who believe that the federal government is illegitimate and that they are called to restore America's Christian heritage. Another is the influence of Christian identity theology, a racist and anti-semitic interpretation of Christianity that has been adopted by various white supremacist groups. They believe that white people are the true descendants of the biblical Israelites and that other races are inferior.

Shawn:

The intersection of Christianity and right-wing extremism is also evident in the activities of groups like the Army of God, an anti-abortion extremist organization that uses Christian rhetoric to justify violent attacks on abortion providers, which have been responsible for numerous bombings, arsons and murders, all carried out in the name of defending what they see as God's will. When extremist rhetoric is normalized, when these groups are armed and ready to fight and when given an opportunity, violence is made possible and manifest. The events of January 6th 2021 are another chilling example of what can happen when a spark is put to that fuse. So if we put this together the relationship between evangelicals, the Republican Party and right-wing extremist groups, the influence each has had on reshaping the groups, their agendas and their membership, the embrace of extremism and violence as a means to an end, as well as dedication to erasing the wall between church and state, we begin to see what an authoritarian America could look like under another Trump presidency. This is Dr Gushee painting that picture.

Dr. Gushee:

What do they want? Well, it depends on who you're talking to. What Stephen Miller apparently would want would be the deportation of 12 million undocumented immigrants, right? What the old school Christian family values people would want is probably an overturning of gay marriage and something like the Arizona's ban on abortion that just went through. I think that what the so-called religious liberty activists are wanting is the freedom of Christian folks to run their homes, schools, families, churches and businesses in accordance with their values, even if this includes discriminating against, say, lgbt people in business life. In other words, I would say, think of.

Dr. Gushee:

Well, here's another thing On the church-state front. Some of what is desired by some of them is the end of the separation of church and state, or the functional end of it, the permission of local majorities to essentially impose an establishmentarian regime in schools locally and all across the South. That would be much a delight to a lot of Christian people all across the South. For example, you know the whole. You can't pray a Christian prayer over the loudspeaker and you can't teach from the Christian Bible and ask people to consider believing in Jesus. There's a lot of folks that would really like to be able to do that in public spaces like public schools. So one way to think about it is think of everything that has changed since 1962 and think of a population that would like to reverse all those changes. And different people have different passions. But it's a reactionary move against pluralism, against disestablishment though of course that goes back to 17,. What 89, against the weakened role of white people in America, against the feminist movement, against the gay rights movement, against abortion rights, against a multicultural America.

Shawn:

Christian nationalism seeks to promote the idea that the United States is inherently a Christian nation and that its laws and policies should reflect Christian values. This ideology can lead to the implementation of policies that promote a specific religious agenda, potentially infringing upon the rights of those who do not share these beliefs. Christian nationalism could lead to mandates for prayer in public schools, teaching creationism alongside evolution and incorporating Christian symbols in public institutions, challenging religious neutrality in education and government side evolution and incorporating Christian symbols in public institutions, challenging religious neutrality in education and government. In healthcare, it might restrict reproductive rights, limit access to contraception and abortion services and support conscience clauses allowing providers to refuse treatment based on religious objectives, potentially denying essential care to LGBTQ plus individuals and others. Christian nationalism promotes laws aligning with specific religious doctrines, like religious freedom legislation, permitting discrimination against LGBTQ plus individuals, eroding civil rights protections and creating a more divided society. Christian nationalism threatens American pluralism by marginalizing other faiths and non-religious citizens, undermining the core principles of respecting diverse beliefs. This marginalization can lead to alienation and resentment among non-Christians, deepening social divisions. Other religious and non-religious groups may feel like second-class citizens, with non-Christian holidays and traditions receiving less recognition if any at all, fostering feelings of exclusion.

Shawn:

Christian nationalism can weaken democratic institutions by prioritizing religious ideology over democratic principles, influencing the judiciary to favor religious doctrine over secular law, eroding judicial impartiality. It also fosters distrust in secular government institutions, undermining public confidence in democratic processes and making authoritarian measures more acceptable, leading to decreased voter turnout and engagement. The most insidious component of this is that, while many Christian nationalists are committed to their interpretation of Christian teaching and expectation, many more have co-opted the religion, the language and the purpose, utilizing religion as a weapon to legitimize oppression and violence. White supremacist right-wing militia groups are one example. Populist and authoritarian politicians in the United States, the Republican Party led by Donald Trump, are another example. Dr Shalu Nigam, lawyer activist and author of numerous books, including Domestic Violence in India. What One Should Know describes this.

Dr. Nigam:

But today, in the world of information, the world's voices, videos, all are being censored, the truth is being suppressed, freedom of expression is being curtailed and authoritarian states are propagating lies, rewriting the history and trying to distort the reality by over-imposing a particular ideology. Citizenship rights are being replaced with the dutiful, obedient subjects who own loyalty to the dictator. Now, creating and maintaining terror and fear through control is becoming the aim of the state. So you can see these populist leaders across the countries, including Russia, israel and India, and they are projecting anything as the enemy and instilling fears and terror among masses, while fueling hate. And you know these are some of the tools they deploy as strategy to grab and maintain their power position. Religion is being used as a weapon to create binaries and divide, and those who do not conform to their dictates are being labeled as others, or anti-nationals are being labeled as others or anti-nationals. So the culture of violence and impunity is being manufactured, designed and cultivated by these leaders to endorse their vested political agenda.

Shawn:

One of the things that worries me about Christianity, especially evangelicalism as it has become more militarized, more politicized and less well Christian, is that they're playing a zero-sum game, characterized in biblical battle terms, where good they must defeat evil, the rest of us, that there is no middle ground and no peace until they've won. So I asked Dr Gushti about this, if contemporary evangelicals can live side by side with secular neighbors in peace, or if that ship has sailed.

Dr. Gushee:

It's a great question. Here's a generous reading of what the Supreme Court has been doing on the church state front. I'm not sure I believe this reading, but let's work with me on this for just a minute. What if conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists will never be more in the population than they are right now and are declining in numbers? So let's say it's, at the most, 20%. There are more people attracted to Trump than that, but let's say that's that part of it. And then let's say that this current resurgence on the right just continues to lose and so Democrats continue to win in the states and federally, nationally.

Dr. Gushee:

Some of what happens after that depends on how Democrats play their hand, how hard they press for the national imposition of progressive values, like what a lot of evangelicals were saying to me before Trump came along was we feel like the state pushes us around and the culture pushes us around and keeps telling us that we have to live by values that we don't believe in, and keep shoving these values down the throats of our children, who we're trying to shape in a different way. If the culture would provide or the government under liberal leadership would provide more breathing room, they would say less pressure to conform, more ability to live as a separate kind of enclave, then it'd be okay. We could tolerate it, and so one way to interpret the Supreme Court's church-state decisions in the last little while has been to provide more of that breathing room for this minority that feels embattled, like the, you know, the cake baker decision in Colorado, you know and other kinds of accommodations, like the coach praying at the 50-yard line case out of Washington, right. So provide more space for this conservative minority to be left alone, to live in peace. Now, on the liberal side they would say that's not really how they interpret the story. They feel it is a much more of a threatening force, maybe a larger force and plenty aggressive in its own right.

Dr. Gushee:

I think what we need at the governmental level is statesmanship to enable starkly different values, people who have starkly different values, to be able to live together in the same nation. If what you have instead is politicians who are heightening the differences and attacking the other side all the time as part of the daily bread of politics, then those differences and divisions are only going to get worse. So long answer to your question. I think that there are some fundamentalists and evangelicals who, if they felt more breathing room, even if they were losing, would be able to drop the militancy and the authoritarianism and just kind of live as an enclave. But Trump is promising them something a whole lot better right now. He's promising them victory, and for now they're going to ride that horse and see if he brings them the victory that he's promised them. He did it once. They might, and many of them think he did it twice and got cheated, so they're going to try a third time.

Shawn:

The long-term implications of Christian nationalism for American democracy are profound.

Shawn:

As religious ideology increasingly informs public policy and governance, the principle of separation of church and state, integral to protecting individual freedoms and maintaining a neutral government, are being significantly weakened.

Shawn:

This erosion has paved the way for appeals to a more authoritarian governance style that prioritizes a specific religious agenda over democratic norms and values.

Shawn:

Furthermore, the marginalization of non-Christian and non-religious citizens has led to greater social fragmentation.

Shawn:

As divisions deepen, the potential for conflict increases, making it more difficult to build consensus on critical national issues. This fragmentation weakens the social fabric that holds democracy together, making it more susceptible to authoritarian influences. In many ways, the unstable, chaotic and violent country that the framers were seeking to avoid by explicitly separating church and state in the creation of the new United States has become realized as a result of the creeping influence of religion, particularly Christianity, into the militarized and radicalized Republican Party and now, alarmingly, within the federal government itself. When influential Republican figures like Senator Mike Lee says that the United States is not a democracy, House Speaker Mike Johnson states that American law should reflect Christian values and beliefs, Senator Josh Hawley calls himself a Christian nationalist and raises his fist in solidarity with violent insurrectionists and former, possibly future, American President Donald Trump states that he will be a dictator for day one. They are telling us that American democracy is not the goal. Authoritarianism is. Democracy is not the goal, Authoritarianism is. Check back next Sunday for another episode of After America. Thank you,

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host