I saw a clip of someone accusing Charlie Kirk of being a Christian Nationalist. He separated the two terms, saying that he was a Christian and a nationalist, but didn't really know what a Christian Nationalist was. That is another sliding definition when people want to accuse you, throwing any additional things they have heard about Christian Nationalists into their basket of accusations.
I wonder if they would believe the same thing about National Socialism, that if you were both of those words (As a Swede or a Greek would be) you must be a Nazi, or an International Socialist - that if you are both an internationalist and a socialist you must therefore be a communist. But I jest. They would deny that it works that way. Only in one direction, when they want to find a stick to beat you with.
Perhaps I need to get out more, but I don't know anybody who fits the "Christian Nationalist" stereotype.
ReplyDeleteIt is, at least, better than "Christo-fascism," which is a contradiction in terms. It is somewhat forgivable, though, since it was a response to "Islamo-fascism," a right-wing idea that entailed a similar contradiction. In fascism the state is the organism of which we are all part, and religion if it is allowed to exist must align with it and submit to it exactly as any organ has to serve its organism or be cut out as diseased. Setting up any religion as an alternative source of genuine authority that might dissent from the state makes whatever this form of politics is something other than fascism.
ReplyDeleteOne really could be a nationalist who believed in a nation centered on Christianity, even defined by it: indeed, there have been many such people. There have been even more, since the Reformation, that believed in a nationalism defined by a particular sect.
From the outside it seems as though some of the Orthodox national churches define themselves by their "sect" (though I think they're all in communion).
Delete