Fred Clark on religion, immigration, and abusive nationalism

In his latest Patheos post, Fred Clark, my favorite religious blogger, discusses a sermon topic that, in Christian circles, has been a cliche for many, many years: "We are Christians first, Americans second."

"But at the same time, the fact that this bland sentiment is regarded as such — as a bland, unremarkable statement of something obvious and hum-drum — is proof that the Christian nationalists are not entirely wrong when they talk about America being 'a Christian nation.' Christianity does not, and ought not, to enjoy legal establishment or privilege over other religions, but it clearly enjoys a measure of cultural hegemony and dominance.

"Stand up in public and say 'We ought to be Christians first, Americans second' and you’ll be greeted with yawns for saying something so boring and tediously obvious. But if you acknowledge the very same blandly obvious thing about any other religion, you’ll be met with an angry mob.

"It would not be safe to stand up in public and say 'We ought to be Muslims first, Americans second.' Or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Latter Day Saints.*"

He goes on to describe why every believer, Christian or not, to be a Mormon, or Jew, or animist first, and an American second: because religions make claims about the nature of humanity and the order of the universe, claims that extend infinitely beyond national borders or political arrangements.  He illustrates that very well by describing an outdated world map.

He finishes with the following sad observation: "* It wasn’t even safe for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to say this about Christianity as a Black Christian. This suggests that what’s actually hegemonic here — privileged as normative — is not Christianity, but whiteness. What the bland platitude really is saying is 'We are white first, Christian second, and American third.'"

Posted by Jennifer A. Nolan