Christian Nationalism: One Nation Under Whose God?

In 2012 I published a book titled The Constitution of Religious Freedom, in which I presented an argument about the meaning and significance of the religion clauses of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” My early thinking about this issue came in a course I taught at Drake University by the name of “Law, Politics, and Religion.”

I always began the course by asking students on the first day, is the United States a Christian nation? My interest, I told them, was not so much their specific answers but, instead, how they understood the question. The term “Christian nationalism” at that point did not have wide currency, but my inquiries implicitly addressed the concept.

In their approach to the question, students often suggested—without thinking of the not insubstantial differences and conflicts among the various denominations—that since most people in the U.S. identify as Christian in some sense of the term, it is plausible to say that being Christian is an important part of being truly American.

That raises the question, however, that since 90% of Americans are right-handed, must we say that being right-handed is an important part of being truly American? Silly or not, this puzzler forces us to consider what it might mean to say that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

As I noted in an earlier column, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) defines Christian nationalism as support for the following propositions:

· The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.

· U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.

· If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.

· Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.

· God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.

The core idea underlying these five claims as well as my general question to students is the issue of whether the U.S.—the nation itself—has a religious identity of its own independent of the religious identity of individual Americans.

There are, I suggest, three possible answers—two are Yes and one No.

The first Yes would be to say that the U.S. is (in some sense) a Christian nation, which everyone must respect, but that people of all religious orientations are welcome as full citizens. This position is either not Christian nationalism or else is at most a “soft” version of it.

The second Yes would be to say that the U.S. is (in some sense) a Christian nation, but, as the claim that “Being Christian is an important part of being truly American” implies, people of other religious identities are not welcome as full citizens; they’re not “truly American.”

Moreover, consider the propositions that “U.S. laws should be based on Christian values” and, of particular significance, that “God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.” Both claims are ultimately about who should hold power in our country.

The term “dominion,” Dictionary.com tells us, means 1) “the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority,” and 2) “rule; control; domination.” If in fact “God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society,” then non-Christians—not to mention those who are not the “right” type of Christians—clearly would not enjoy full and equal citizenship status with those recognized as Christians.

This Yes, by contrast with the first Yes, is what we might call the “hard” version of Christian nationalism. For a good account, see this article in Christian Century. My argument is that both Yes answers, the “hard” but even the “soft” version, are contrary to the First Amendment.

Finally, the No answer would be to say that the U.S. as a nation does NOT have a religious identity: every member of the community is a full citizen regardless of religious orientation. This answer, it should be apparent, is the one I consider to be constitutionally the most accurate. The locus of religious identity is not the nation, but the individual. And that proposition, I argued in my 2012 book, is the meaning of the religion clauses in the First Amendment.

Beyond theoretical arguments, remember at least two evidentiary points here. First, the Constitution itself makes no mention of God. Indeed, despite its frequent use at present, the phrase “under God” did not show up in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 during the Cold War.

Second, because the founders understood that swearing an oath was an essentially religious act, elected and appointed officeholders as well as even jurors are allowed to “affirm” rather than “swear.” Thus, to use the example of the President, the Constitution stipulates that “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” If the nation itself had a religious identity, the option of affirmation would not exist.

In view of the current Administration’s support from and encouragement of Christian nationalism, we must remember that constitutionally speaking, the locus of religious identity in the U.S. is the individual and NOT the nation. We are one nation under no one’s God. That might sound harsh, but it is what religious freedom for all faiths means—Christians included.

May Heaven help us.

https://iowawriters.substack.com/p/iowa-writers-collaborative