The Emerging Republican Theocracy - White Christian nationalism is the creed of red America - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The most striking thing about this screed, aside from its irredeemable irrationality, is its irony. Everything Dr. Reich complains about is implemented or about to be implemented by the Left. Dr. Reich goes on and on about the possibility of dangerous authoritarianism of "Christian nationalists" while right now we have the authoritarianism of the Left in operation. He wants freedom of religion while the Left is simultaneously silencing Christians for putting their faith into practice.

Can anyone remember "Christian nationalism" being a thing prior to maybe a few years ago? The idea appeared out of nowhere, doubtless a talking point from the deep state. It's truly astounding how fast these bumper sticker slogans gain traction. 

So, Dr. Reich thinks these "Christian nationalists" are dangerous. They are going discriminate, force people to believe in God, and march people off to the gulag. This nonsense is designed to ramp up outrage against an imagined enemy so as to mobilize the troops. The objective, of course, is to suppress Christianity. 

But the upshot is, even if every "danger" described by Dr. Reich is true, we would still prefer that society over the one envisioned by Leftists. 

---------------------------

Friends,

In a case centering on wrongful-death claims for frozen embryos that were destroyed in a mishap at a fertility clinic, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled last Friday that frozen embryos are “children” under state law. As a result, Alabama in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics are ceasing services, afraid to store or destroy any embryos.

The underlying issue is whether government can interfere in the most intimate aspects of people’s lives (No, this is not the underlying issue, since government has always interfered with peoples' lives. The fact is, Dr. Reich opposes certain interferences, really likes others, and doesn't care about the rest of them. 

So he doesn't like government interfering with sex stuff but he most certainly wants government to interfere in peoples' finances [particularly if they are wealthy], their carbon footprints [but not if they're rich leftists], and the public expression of their religion [but only Bible believing Christians]. 

Ironically, he actually wants government intervention into sex stuff if the leftist-approved sex stuff is being impeded. For example, wanting schools to teach DEI means a particular moral stance is being forced onto students. Thus government is always taking sides. Government intervention always puts government on one side and the disapproved ones on the other. Thus the disapproved ones are being intervened against as government moves to "protect" the approved ones.

We would prefer government stay completely out of peoples' private lives, including sex, energy usage, finances, religion, and voluntary associations. But the Left would oppose this, preferring to impose their own authoritarianism on the rest of us.)

 — not only barring people from obtaining IVF services (The court decision did not do this.)

but also forbidding them from entering into gay marriage, (There are no operational laws forbidding gay marriage.)

utilizing contraception, (There are no operational laws forbidding the use of contraception.)

having out-of-wedlock births, (There are no operational laws forbidding out of wedlock births.)

ending their pregnancies, (i.e, killing their unborn babies.)

changing their genders, (There are no operational laws forbidding people from changing their genders.)

checking out whatever books they want from the library, (We can only  assume this means that children should be able to access hard core porn at their local library... Unless of course Dr. Reich is simply being hyperbolic.)

and worshipping God in whatever way they wish (or not worshipping at all). (There are no operational laws forbidding peoples' worship, except for the Left's various initiatives to drive Christians out of the public sphere.)

All of these private freedoms (Private freedoms? Dr. Reich doesn't really believe there are private freedoms. For the Left, all private behavior has public policy implications and legislative requirements. He wants government involvement to facilitate and enforce his preferred private freedoms via court dictate or the law.)

are under increasing assault from Republican legislators and judges who want to impose their own morality on everyone else. (We've been waiting for this statement. Dr. Reich seems unware of his own irony. He wants his morality to be carried by the force of law.)

Republicans are increasingly at war with America’s fundamental separation of church and state. (Well, for 150 years there was no problem with church and state. People were free to mix their politics and faith according to the dictates of their consciences. Politicians have invoked God for hundreds of years. The founders clearly had no concept of there being a problem mixing church and state. 

The separation of church and state is a fiction.)

According to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, (A completely useless survey. The questions are vague and biased, the premise is assumed as true in the analysis, and the idea that the other side would also implement their version of the same issues is left untouched.)

more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation — either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21 percent) or sympathizing with those views (33 percent). (And more than half of Democrats believe the opposite. So what's the big deal?)

This point of view has long been prominent among white evangelicals but is spreading into almost all reaches of the Republican Party, as exemplified by the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling. (The court's ruling has nothing to do with Christian nationalism, and probably has little to do with Christianity. A dead human is a dead human. Simple logic dictates this.)

It is also closely linked with authoritarianism. According to the survey, half of Christian nationalism adherents and nearly 4 in 10 sympathizers said they support the idea of an authoritarian leader powerful enough to keep these Christian values in society. (Um, no. Let's quote the survey: 

Supporters of Christian nationalism tend to support obedience to authority and the idea of authoritarian leaders who are willing to break the rules. While half of Americans (50%) agree that society is in trouble because people do not obey authority, this number rises to 69% among Christian nationalism sympathizers and 74% among Christian nationalism adherents.

Only about three in ten Americans (28%) agree that “because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.” However, nearly four in ten Christian nationalism sympathizers (38%) and half of Christian nationalism adherents (50%) support this notion of an authoritarian leader.

"Breaking rules" is not authoritarianism. But the real irony is that politicians have been breaking the rules and flouting the law for many decades. Most "Christian nationalists" [actually, people who pay attention to the decay of society and the leftist increase in authoritarian government] are wanting to return government to its constitutionally defined role. So if indeed "Christian nationalists" want their politicians to break the rules, it's simply a different set of rules to be broken, or perhaps, it's simply encouragement for their politicians to engage the leftist opposition on the Left's own terms, using the same techniques the Left uses.

It has been said that Republicans play by the rules while Democrats play to win. "Christian nationalists" probably want Republicans to play the same game as Democrats.)

 
During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.

“We need to be the party of nationalism,” she said. “I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”

A growing number of Republican voters view Trump as the second coming of Jesus Christ (The article doesn't say this. It reports that Trump is viewed as being chosen by God. This is hardly controversial, since Christians believe that all leaders are chosen by God:

Da. 2:20-21 ...Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his. 21 He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.

Ro. 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

and see the 2024 election as a battle not only for America’s soul but for the salvation of all mankind. (***Sigh*** We are growing weary of chasing down every spurious, misunderstood, and/or misrepresented claim. Even if everything Dr. Reich is claiming is true, what does it matter? Everyone has a belief, and agenda, and preference on how society should be arranged. 

And by the way, "Christian nationalists" are a minority. They have no power. They are not a danger. Even in the unlikely event "Christian nationalists" gain power, a nation governed by them is vastly superior to a nation governed by leftists and anti-Christians.)

Many of the Trump followers who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, carried Christian symbols, clothes, and signs invoking God and Jesus. (And most of the protestors who were setting fire to city blocks and storming government buildings in the summer of 2020 were unbathed far left atheists with unshaven legs and armpits. 

See how easy it is to stereotype?)

An influential think tank close to Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas into his administration if Trump returns to power, according to documents obtained by Politico. (Ah, Politico, certainly a sober, neutral, unbiased news site...)

Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget during his first term and remains close to him. Vought, frequently cited as a potential chief of staff in a second Trump White House, has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault and has spoken of policies he might pursue in response. (There can be no doubt that Christians are increasingly coming under attack for their faith.)

Those policies include banning immigration of non-Christians into the United States, (The link doesn't say this.)

overturning same-sex marriage, (The link doesn't say this.)

and barring access to contraception. (Let's quote from the link: 

Vought has a close affiliation with Christian nationalist William Wolfe, a former Trump administration official who has advocated for overturning same-sex marriage, ending abortion and reducing access to contraceptives.

So, follow this. A guy known to be close to Trump is affiliated with a former Trump official who believes forbidden things. This, for some unknown reason, constitutes a danger to democracy.)

In a concurring opinion in last week’s Alabama Supreme Court decision, Alabama’s chief justice, Tom Parker, invoked the prophet Jeremiah and the writings of 16th- and 17th-century theologians. “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,” he wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.” (The judge has a right to his opinion, religious or not.)

Referring to the Book of Genesis, Parker noted that “the principle itself — that human life is fundamentally distinct from other forms of life and cannot be taken intentionally without justification — has deep roots that reach back to the creation of man ‘in the image of God.’” (All laws are derived from moral principles. And a lot of laws are based on moral principles in the Bible. It's how we know to make things illegal, and has been done since our inception as a nation.

Dr. Reich needs to demonstrate that his moral principles are superior. He cannot use Chrstian morality to promulgate anti-Christian ideas.)

Before joining the court, Parker was a close aide and ally of Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was twice removed from the job — first for dismissing a federal court order to remove an enormous granite monument of the Ten Commandments he had installed in the state judicial building, and then for ordering state judges to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming gay marriage. (Hmmm. It used to be that dissent was patriotic...)

So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly based its decisions on scripture, but several of its recent rulings — the Dobbs decision that overruled Roe v. Wade, its decision in Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District on behalf of a public school football coach who led students in Christian prayer, and its decision in Carson v. Makin, requiring states to fund private religious schools if they fund any other private schools, even if those religious schools would use public funds for religious instruction and worship — are consistent with Christian nationalism. (Well, actually, they are consistent with the founders and the constitution.)

But Christian nationalism is inconsistent with personal freedom, (Again, for the leftist there is no such thing as personal freedom.)

including the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (One of those rare times when a Leftist likes the Constitution. Otherwise they hate it.)

We can be truly free only if we’re confident we can go about our private lives without being monitored or intruded upon by government, (Gawd, does Dr. Reich have any clue how ironic he's being?)

and can practice whatever faith (or lack of faith) we wish regardless of the religious beliefs of others.

A society where one set of religious views is imposed on a large number of citizens who disagree with them is not a democracy. It’s a theocracy.