I like Christianist. Like Islamist it distinguishes between believers and fundamentalist (which in both cases seems to be based on weird readings of basic texts.)
The distinction between Islamic and Islamist organizations is pretty important, and I agree that the same can be drawn between Christian-identified groups.
However, Islamic and Islamist organizations both comprise *Muslims* so I think that too carries over. The Christianists *say* they are Christians, and there is no empirical reason to say they are not. Even when entirely dissociated from politics, the beliefs and practices of self-identified Christians are too diverse for any particular conception to be authoritative outside its own sect.
There's a big difference to people who aspire to live as peaceful Christians, as opposed to fundamentalists who haven't the vaguest idea of Christianity but want their peculiar prejudices served.
That's certainly true. However, so-called Christianity has become almost meaningless in America. The Evangelicals, the 'Christo-fascists', the ostensible fundamentalists all serve to present Christianity as it exists today. And it's not just in America. The history is not particularly edifying. Personally, I think religion is an anachronism. The sooner humanity dispenses with it, the better.
The objection is to describing them as Christian, regardless of any other appendage. Nothing in their credo or behavior suggests any association with the teachings of Jesus the Christ whose robe they try to shelter under.
If their objective is what *they* understand to be a "Christian nation," then "Christian nationalist" is absolutely the correct term. They may not "be Christian" to you, but that's irrelevant; *all* self-identified Christian sects, from the largest Catholic communion on down, are "not Christian" to some other sects.
(This is for TC and the general readership, not directed at you.)
I like Christianist. Like Islamist it distinguishes between believers and fundamentalist (which in both cases seems to be based on weird readings of basic texts.)
How about "Christianish"? They kinda sound Christian, and look Christian. They're just not the real deal.
The distinction between Islamic and Islamist organizations is pretty important, and I agree that the same can be drawn between Christian-identified groups.
However, Islamic and Islamist organizations both comprise *Muslims* so I think that too carries over. The Christianists *say* they are Christians, and there is no empirical reason to say they are not. Even when entirely dissociated from politics, the beliefs and practices of self-identified Christians are too diverse for any particular conception to be authoritative outside its own sect.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3528049-boebert-jesus-didnt-have-enough-ar-15s-to-keep-his-government-from-killing-him/
Boebert said this at a supposedly Christian conference.
She was cheered and not booed.
There's the empirical evidence that these people are neither familiar with nor following the teachings of Christ.
(Their willingness to lie at the drop of a hat is also a big problem.)
Christianists.
Christian NATIONALISTS!
A terror organization !
I fail to see the difference.
There's a big difference to people who aspire to live as peaceful Christians, as opposed to fundamentalists who haven't the vaguest idea of Christianity but want their peculiar prejudices served.
That's certainly true. However, so-called Christianity has become almost meaningless in America. The Evangelicals, the 'Christo-fascists', the ostensible fundamentalists all serve to present Christianity as it exists today. And it's not just in America. The history is not particularly edifying. Personally, I think religion is an anachronism. The sooner humanity dispenses with it, the better.
Joe Biden is a White Christian. So is Larry Hogan. So is Nancy Pelosi. That should help clarify the difference.
The term used was Christian Nationalist. That was what I responded to.
The objection is to describing them as Christian, regardless of any other appendage. Nothing in their credo or behavior suggests any association with the teachings of Jesus the Christ whose robe they try to shelter under.
Fair enough. I agree.
If their objective is what *they* understand to be a "Christian nation," then "Christian nationalist" is absolutely the correct term. They may not "be Christian" to you, but that's irrelevant; *all* self-identified Christian sects, from the largest Catholic communion on down, are "not Christian" to some other sects.
(This is for TC and the general readership, not directed at you.)