American Christian Nationalism

“Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our Christian brothers and sisters to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation. We believe that:

• People of all faiths and none have the right and responsibility to engage constructively in the public square. 
• Patriotism does not require us to minimize our religious convictions.”  

-- Christians Against Christian Nationalism 

“‘Let’s run the race marked out for us. Let’s fix our eyes on Old Glory and all she represents. Let’s fix our eyes on this land of heroes and let their courage inspire. And let’s fix our eyes on the author and perfecter of our faith and freedom and never forget that where the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom — and that means freedom always wins.’ .... But Pence, who accepted his party’s nomination for vice president during the speech, sparked outcry in some Christian circles as he closed out his remarks when he combined at least two Bible verses — and replaced references to Jesus with patriotic imagery.” -- Mike Pence, August 2020, dog whistling to Christian Nationalists by conflating Jesus with the US flag based on 2 Corinthians 3:17 and Hebrews 12:1-2

“‘I should have seen this coming,’ writes John Fea in his new book, Believe Me. The toxic mixture of fear, nostalgia, and desire for power so vividly on display in 2016 was not an aberration, Fea tells us. Instead, it’s part of a long white evangelical tradition. The alliance with Trump may have come as a shock to some, but the roots of this strange embrace run deep into the white evangelical past. .... These deep roots are best seen in the most effective chapter of the book, a ‘short history of evangelical fear’. Fea describes Puritan narratives of moral decline and social decay–narratives begun almost before there was time for decline to occur!–as perhaps ‘the first American evangelical fear.’” -- Colorblind Christians, discussing Trump’s 2016 election and the role that Evangelical Christians played in it

A program, God Bless, produced by the NPR program On the Media discusses the phenomenon of Christian Nationalism (CN) in America. Most of the following comments summarize the first ~20 minutes of the broadcast, which also discusses the historical origin of the mostly mythical belief in severe persecution of Christians by various hostile influences throughout history.

This is of some interest because this group is one of the president’s core supporters. The president and vice president both play on mythical fears that CN ideology is partly based on. They pander to this group in ways that are opaque to most Americans but quite clear to people who believe in CN. 

About 75% of Evangelical Christians are Christian Nationalists (CNs), but the emphasis is more on nationalism than on a specific brand of Christianity. The core ideal is to see “people like us.” American-born white people are people like us and that is the focus of power and privilege. Religion is secondary to the in-group and people in the in-group do not need to be religious hardly at all. More than half the American electorate is CN and about 20% of those (~11% of the total electorate?) fiercely endorse the CN ideology, while about 32% are not strident but still hold these beliefs.

For this ideology, being Christian “like us” and an American citizen translates into social beliefs and symbolic boundaries that tend to exclude others from political parties, political offices, social services and even who is a citizen or qualified to vote. The religious component holds that because these God-willed beliefs are sacred, adherents should be willing to do anything to insure that this vision of America comes to pass. Basically, CNs want to see Christianity play a role at the center of American life, with less influence from other religious faiths, secularism and probably racial minorities. 

Christian Nationalism myths include the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and that Christians are being persecuted in the form of infringements on their religious freedoms. Although the idea of persecution is false in modern America, it is a central complaint that CNs frequently raise. The idea of persecution of Christians dates back to the early days of Christianity and has been raised even at various times when there is no significant persecution. The modern fear is that Christianity is under attack by hostile forces such as secularism, moral relativism and feminism with much of the threat coming from Jews.

The president is aware of the CN ideology and its large following. In his rhetoric anyone who is not a CN is anti-Christian. He has attacked Joe Biden, incoherently and falsely claiming that he “will take away your guns, destroy your second amendment, no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God, he's against God.” An ad the president has run shows Biden worshipping with a black congregation with a voice over saying that people will not be safe in America if Biden is elected. Apparently, this kind of incoherence appeals to some or most CNs. 

One can presume that believers in the CN ideology are among the president’s most loyal supporters. Since he is doing what God commands, presumably the ends mostly or completely justify the means. That may even be true if, in the name of CN ideology, the president murders someone in broad daylight with dozens of witnesses seeing it. Most of these people are not going to change their support for the president, no matter what.

In the CN ideology, one can see why so many religious conservatives have no qualms about ongoing widespread voter suppression by the GOP. They do not want minorities or democrats to vote because those people are not “like us.”  

The Origin of the Punisher God Concept: A Cultural Evolutionary Hypothesis

Muslim women praying 

Istiqlal mosque, Jakarta, Indonesia

The NPR Hidden Brain program, Creating God, focuses on the biological and social origins and utility of the concept of God. Social psychology professor Azim Shariff at the Center for Applied Moral Psychology at the University of British Columbia has studied this question in detail. He argues that about 12,000 years ago, as humans invented agriculture, settled down and began to live in groups of more than about 150 people, an urgent need to protect people from cheaters and liars arose. Humans are not adept at knowing more than about 150 people well. Cooperation required knowing people well. 

As groups living in villages of hundreds or thousands of people arose, there had to be a way to insure good, cooperative behavior for civilization to progress. In small groups where everyone knew everyone else, you would get punished if you told a lie, stole someone's dinner, failed to defend the group against enemies or otherwise acted in an immoral way. Cheats and liars could not get away with cheating and lying very well. There was no way to disappear into a crowd. 

To deal with cheats and liars God was invented and the God was envisioned to be a supernatural punisher of bad deeds. People unknown to each other who held a common religion had a basis to trust and cooperate. They knew their God would punish the one who lies or cheats. In essence, a punitive God was invented to deter immoral behavior. 

 

Empirical evidence

Shariff tested the hypothesis that belief in a punisher God would be at least correlated with less cheating behavior and maybe even caused by the religious belief. He wrote this in a 2011 research paper: 

“Fear of supernatural punishment may serve as a deterrent to counternormative behavior, even in anonymous situations free from human social monitoring. The authors conducted two studies to test this hypothesis, examining the relationship between cheating behavior in an anonymous setting and views of God as loving and compassionate, or as an angry and punishing agent. Overall levels of religious devotion or belief in God did not directly predict cheating. However, viewing God as a more punishing, less loving figure was reliably associated with lower levels of cheating. This relationship remained after controlling for relevant personality dimensions, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender.”

The historical record indicates that the punishing God concept arose when societies were struggling with increasing social size, complexity or resource scarcity. Under conditions of such stress, Shariff argues that the need for moral cooperation was more urgent. Other research suggests that belief in a punishing God at least correlates with less bad behavior. 

Modern applications

People hostile to religion for various reasons tend to be hostile to the concept that belief in a punisher God could be beneficial to a society or individuals. The hostility is postulated to stem from discomfort with the idea that religion can have any beneficial effects. Unfortunately for those folks, there is a large body of empirical evidence showing that various beneficial effects attach to religious belief regardless of whether the God(s) is a punisher or loving and forgiving.

On the other hand, some devout religious people resent this kind of cultural evolutionary research because in essence, it provides a competing narrative for the origin of God that is entirely secular and human. That thought is discomforting to at least some devoutly religious people, probably most.

Social scientists see progress of human civilization as necessarily a dual inheritance phenomenon. It is both a cultural evolutionary inheritance phenomenon and a Darwinian inheritance phenomenon. Modern religions are cultural structures that arose from millennia of trial and error about what beliefs and rituals served society reasonably well and what did not. The big modern religions arose from cultural evolutionary inheritance. When seen this way, religion served practical functions to help civilization advance.

Some questions that arise from this line of research center on whether modern religions still mostly serve or mostly hinder complex, technological societies with tens of millions of people in them. Have religions adapted to new circumstances? If they have not, are they now more damaging than helpful in the US or any other country? What are the impacts of religious beliefs in a punisher God that hold people should have as many children as they can, while refraining from using birth control?

Reconsidering religion

This research and the cultural evolution concept casts modern religion in a very different light than I had previously was aware even existed in the science literature. The endless contest between people who want their religion to stay frozen in time and those who want to modernize it is an important source of modern cultural conflict. In that lies a deep reservoir of potential conflict that propagandists and social dividers can tap into for their own ends. In this regard, it seems clear to me that this is a rich vein of mental resource to mine for demagogues, tyrants, kleptocrats and other immoral people who use dark free speech (epistemic terrorism) to deceive, divide, distract, irrationally emotionally manipulate (foment fear, anger, bigotry, distrust, etc.) and bamboozle with self-serving bogus reasoning (motivated reasoning). 

For me, this is another of those significant mind-opening experiences that will take some time to consider in my thinking about people doing politics.

Book Review: Dime’s Worth of Difference

“There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.” -- white racist and former Alabama governor George Wallace, 1968 American Independent Party candidate for president (before he died, Wallace recanted his virulent racism and apologized for it)

“Integration, therefore, at this turn of the century, has become another promise, not exactly broken, but finagled to mean whatever does not cross the borders of white comfort. Perhaps separate can be equalized after all.” -- Greg Moses, Chapter 19, Civil Rights Down Through the Presidencies

“In the Clinton-Bush years, the number of incarcerated people per 100,000 US residents increased from 163 to 231. We hold the record in this category. The two parties do not differ on the issue of prisons, because both are wedded to corporate power, and the prisons, for that power, provide a vital service.” -- Vijay Prashad, Chapter 20, Capitalism’s Warehouses

“The Big Greens, all democrats, get defeated on forests every time and every time, it’s by a wider margin. Is it mere ineptness? Or, is something darker going on here? Is losing a reflex? Or are they throwing the game and blaming Bush and Republican ultras for their own political purposes?” -- Michael Donnelly, Chapter 11, One Wyden, Many Masters

The 2004 book, Dime’s Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, is an extended attack on the democratic party and politicians, especially Bill Clinton. The book’s central thesis is that the republican party is awful but the democratic party is not much better. The book consists of 23 essays by various authors and was edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. The book was published by CounterPunch, a left wing political website and magazine (mostly factual fact rating). 

The authors build a case that economic, military and trade policy overlaps much more than it diverges. The books argues that the main difference between the parties is that the Republican party is open about its pro-corporate, homophobic and racist objectives, while the Democratic party deceives its constituents with lip service about human rights and and equality. The essay authors argue that progressive activists need to concentrate on building grassroots, participatory movements without reliance on party elites or leaders. 

One example of the criticisms centers on how Clinton’s sex scandal accidentally wound up saving social security from privatization and subsequent private sector looting. Chapter 3, How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security, starts with this blast: 

“Had it not been for Monica’s captivating smile and the first inviting snap of that famous thong, President Bill Clinton would have consummated the politics of triangulation, heeding the counsel of a secret White House team and deputy treasury secretary Larry Summers. Late in 1998, or in the State of the Union of 1999 a solemn Clinton would have told the congress and nation that, just like welfare, Social Security was near broke, and had to be ‘reformed’ and its immense pool of capital tendered in part to the mutual funds industry. .... But in 1998 the Lewinsky scandal burst upon the president .... [and] Clinton’s polls told him that his only hope was to nourish the widespread popular dislike for the hoity-toity elites intoning Clinton’s death warrant. In an instant Clinton spun on the dime and became Social Security’s mighty champion, coining the slogan ‘Save Social Security First.’”

Well, when one puts it that way, maybe Clinton was a bit too much like the republicans, deceitfully self-serving and callously laissez-faire capitalist. 

From what I can tell, this book probably reflects the frustration of most true liberals with the democratic party. From this point of view, it is easier to understand why some people will not vote for Biden no matter what. The betrayals and lies the democrats have relied on are hard to take. For people who really do not believe that there are no meaningful major differences between the two parties, this book tries its very best to demolish that belief. And, it does a pretty good demolition job. 

This book does make it harder to get past the lesser of evils argument to justify a Biden vote, but nonetheless 16 years later and under 2020 conditions, the lesser evil is still justifiable and a sound act. 

What is the Fundamental Basis of Democracy?

Vietnam war - we all know exactly what this is

This was part of the evil too

The fundamental basis of democracy is facts, true truths and sound reasoning; 

Lying to and manipulating the public usurps democracy and advances tyranny

In her 1999 book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, moral philosopher, Sisella Bok wrote this in chapter 12, Lies for the Public Good, about the presidential election before America launched into America’s tragically unjustified, disastrous and profoundly immoral, actually evil, Vietnam War:

“[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government.” 

Note the argument that deception strikes at the very essence of democratic government. That is the main point.

As Bok pointed out, Johnson fully intended to escalate the war while at the same time lying to the American people in his campaign for president. He lied to Americans by telling them that he would de-escalate the war. In essence, Bok argued that when people in a democracy form beliefs and make decisions on the basis of lies and deceit, that deprives citizens of their right to make a choice on the basis of truth. The source of the lies and deceit do not matter.[1]

The moral reasoning is straightforward: Citizens who base their decisions on political, special interest or ideologue dark free speech** deprive those citizens of their right to make a choice to consent or dissent on the basis of truth. It really is that simple.

** Dark free speech: lies, deceit, unjustifiable, irrational emotional manipulation, unjustifiable, irrational motivated reasoning, unwarranted character assassination, race baiting, irrational homophobia, irrational xenophobia, etc.

Moral courage requires an ability to face and accept inconvenient facts, truths and reasoning. Moral cowardice lies in ignoring, denying or distorting such inconvenience. Inconvenience is replaced by lies, deceit, manipulation and motivated reasoning. It isn't just politicians and partisan ideologues who are bereft of moral courage. Much of the private sector relies on moral cowardice to make money, just like political moral cowards use it to gain power or influence. The coward oil and plastic industry intentionally deceived and still deceives the American people into a false belief that plastics are mostly recyclable. The coward oil industry tries hard, often quietly with lobbyists and money, to deny anthropogenic climate change.

What shields moral cowards is a combination of ignorance and dark free speech among the public. Significant ignorance is understandable because moral cowards are lying, deceiving and hiding truths as hard as they can.

As I define the concept, all dark free speech is legal. The courts protect dark free speech every bit as much as they protect honest speech. There is no legal difference. 

It isn't dark free speech, it is epistemic terrorism

One of my common interlocutors here has repeatedly criticized my use of "dark free speech" as too wuss. His argument is basically that the label dark free speech is unacceptable because the concept is much more toxic than merely dark. He calls it epistemic terrorism. The google definition of epistemic is "relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation." Is that label too vague for most people to understand? 

Regardless, maybe deceiving and irrationally manipulating people to win hearts and minds is a form of terrorism. 

Is it? Or, is this too wonky to pay much attention to, e.g., splitting hairs and whatnot?

Footnote: 

1. In a real tyranny, the people have no meaningful voice. It does not matter much if their decisions are based on truth or lies. The tyrant decides, not the people. 

Vietnam

We were deceived

They were innocent

The President is Infected With Coronavirus

The New York Times writes:

“President Trump revealed early Friday morning that he and the first lady, Melania Trump, had tested positive for the coronavirus, throwing the nation’s leadership into uncertainty and escalating the crisis posed by a pandemic that has already killed more than 207,000 Americans and devastated the economy. 

The dramatic disclosure came in a Twitter message just before 1 a.m. after a suspenseful evening following reports that Mr. Trump’s close adviser Hope Hicks had tested positive. In her own tweet about 30 minutes later, Mrs. Trump wrote that the first couple were “feeling good,” but the White House did not say whether they were experiencing symptoms. The president’s physician said he could carry out his duties “without disruption” from the Executive Mansion.”

Whether the president is feeling good or not is an open question. Since he lies about his health, and most everything else, there is no way to know what his health status is. Presumably it is early in the infection, so he probably is feeling good.

Maybe if he had taken this seriously and made the people around him wear masks this would not have happened. But he didn't and it did. 

This is nothing to gloat or be happy about. It reflects how poorly the US, and the president in particular, have dealt with the pandemic.

Several Updates: Coronavirus, Germaine's Toxicity

“[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government.” -- moral philosopher, Sisella Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1999 (from chapter 12, Lies for the Public Good); Johnson fully intended to escalate the war while at the same time lying to the American people in his campaign for president, telling them that he would de-escalate the war; the moral lesson → → → lies and deceit deprive people of their right to make a choice on the basis of truth

Coronavirus misinformation: The source of the infodemic (misinfodemic, actually)

The New York Times reports that researchers who have analyzed 38 million English language articles about the pandemic find that the single most common source of misinformation is the president of the US. The NYT writes:

“Of the flood of misinformation, conspiracy theories and falsehoods seeding the internet on the coronavirus, one common thread stands out: President Trump.

That is the conclusion of researchers at Cornell University who analyzed 38 million articles about the pandemic in English-language media around the world. Mentions of Mr. Trump made up nearly 38 percent of the overall “misinformation conversation,” making the president the largest driver of the “infodemic” — falsehoods involving the pandemic.

The study, to be released Thursday, is the first comprehensive examination of coronavirus misinformation in traditional and online media. 

“The biggest surprise was that the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid,” said Sarah Evanega, the director of the Cornell Alliance for Science and the study’s lead author. ‘That’s concerning in that there are real-world dire health implications.’”

There are dire real-world health implications of misinformation? That is an understatement. If there are one million SARS-CoV-2 deaths worldwide so far, can one credit about 10-20% of them to the president’s misinformation influence worldwide, and about 60-70% of them in the US? It’s a moral conundrum. Call out the moral philosophers! HEY SISELLAAAAA!! (Marlon Brando voice screams)

Coronavirus testing, or not

Experts have been telling us all along that we need to do more testing to get a handle on control of the pandemic. NPR reported this morning that a new study, presumably based on statistical modeling, indicates that the US needs to do a lot more testing to even come close to dealing competently with the pandemic. At present, the most daily testing the US has done is 1 million tests/day. The experts estimate that to deal marginally competently with testing for just people at high risk, the US would need to do about 4 million tests/day. To deal marginally competently for the US whole population, about 14 million would be needed per day.

The bottom line is clear. The US was not competent in dealing with the pandemic, and it might never be. How much of the responsibility for this ongoing failure belongs to the president? He believes that he has done a great job and deserves an A++, presumably meaning he believes that he is 0% responsible. Other people might think that he gets a well-deserved grade of F-- and 100% of the responsibility.

Once again, we have at least a serious moral problem on our hands. HEY SISELLAAAAA!! And, probably also a political responsibility analysis problem.

Germaine's toxicity assessment: 45% probability

Vuukle says: Germaine has a 45% probability of being toxic

(see the small blue square)

I have just been booted off of a 7th radical conservative, blindly pro-Trump propaganda, lies and social polarization site.[1] This time it is American Thinker that gave poor, well-meaning Germaine the heave-ho. What was different about this site is that it uses a small comment platform called Vuukle (used at 302 websites) instead of Disqus (219,047 websites). 

For a while, I thought that I would be able to roam freely with Vuukle because that site had not kicked me out long ago after I started spewing very unwelcome truth and reason there. What is different about Vuukle is that it uses some sort of comment screening technology to identify and remove undesirables like me. Like Disqus, Vuukle allows downvotes and blocking, which I get a lot of. 

What is different about Vuukle is that once a bad person like me comes into the platform’s and/or website’s crosshairs, a probable toxicity assessment is shown. For Germaine, Vuukle believes that nasty person is 45% probably toxic (see screenshot above). What is interesting is that despite Germaine's probable toxicity, a comment like “Trump is a great guy and I love him” was allowed and posted as usual.

That probably means that sophisticated software is at work assessing the content of comments and instantly blocking undesirable (anti-Trump) comments, while passing pro-Trump comments on. American Thinker is the typical of kind of unreliable radical propaganda site I have been booted out of.

Who is toxic here and who isn’t?

It seems that as the election approaches, radical conservative sites are increasingly aggressive about shutting down commenters who disagree with the radical right's highly divisive, increasingly authoritarian and pro-Trump content. That content is heavily laden with lies, deceit, misinformation, emotional manipulation and hyper-partisan, incoherent reasoning.

Aw, tain’t fair - Germaine is toxic and can't log in any more

Footnote: 

1. The radical conservative sites where I have been blocked, banned or otherwise ejected from so far are Daily Caller, Town Hall, Breitbart, Daily Signal, Daily Wire and Gateway Pundit. All of those sites use the Disqus comment platform. My Germaine II reputation is badly damaged from all the folks who have downvoted and/or blocked me at those sites.