Referencing this NY Times piece:
Seems like Kristof needs to consult with a sociologist.
Seidel’s analysis seems very shallow to me. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., criticized many churches, therefore Christianity is a force for evil? Preposterous. Seidel’s problem is that once you acknowledge King as a positive force, as Seidel does, you need to trace back to the roots of King’s agenda and work. When you do that, what do you find?
- King grew up in African-American churches.
- He attended a Christian seminary.
- He quoted frequently from the gospels.
- His closest collaborators were fellow members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Allow me to draw your attention to the second word in the title of that organization: Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
And I could go on.
Also, the abolitionist movement both in England and in the United States was strongly impelled by Christian belief and practice. The Quakers were just one small wave in the tide. I could mention William Wilberforce, the Methodist movement, the strong Roman Catholic stance against slavery beginning in the 17th century…
Yes, the record for Christians was certainly mixed, and Christians were not the only participants in abolitionism. Moreover, I do not think that Kristof’s analysis is beyond criticism, and I agree with Seidel that America has never been a “Christian nation.” Nevertheless, Seidel’s argument in this particular article is quite unbalanced, in my opinion.
Best,
Chris
Andrew Seidel of FFRF analysis is right on the mark for today where Christian Nationalist are the Bull Conors of our times.
I certainly agree that “Christian nationalism” is neither Christian nor patriotic.
Christian Nationalism is the most visible and is really the face of Christianity in this country. I think it is a primary reason the Nones are increasing so rapidly as a backlash to Christian Nationalism which like you say isn’t very Christian nor American.