CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM A MISUNDERSTOOD TEACHING (Santamaria)

CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM: A FALSE UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICAN HISTORY

FOREWORD

This is an old debate. It has some half-truths with it. It seems very attractive when you first hear that America is a “Christian Nation.” But upon further thought, one realizes that it is fraught with difficulties, ambiguities, and intolerance. We write this work to clarify some important issues.

Guillermo Santamaria

What is the Definition of Christian Nationalism?

The definition of Christian nationalism depends on who is using the term—advocates, critics, or scholars—but in simplest terms, it’s the attempt to fuse a particular vision of Christianity with national identity and political order.

Here are the key threads that usually show up in definitions:

1. Scholarly definition (neutral/analytic):

Political scientists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, in Taking America Back for God (2020),¹ describe Christian nationalism as:

“A cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life.”It’s not just about personal faith, but about shaping law and national identity around Christianity.

2. Advocates’ definitions (positive):

Some Reformed or evangelical writers (e.g., Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism,² 2022) argue it means ordering the nation’s life explicitly under Christian teaching:

The civil government should recognize Christ as King.

Laws and culture should align with biblical morality.

The nation has a providential destiny as a Christian people.

3. Critics’ definitions (negative):

Journalists, theologians, and historians often use the term pejoratively:

A belief that America was founded as a Christian nation and must be reclaimed as such.

A political project that privileges Christians (often Protestants) over other citizens.

A form of religious nationalism that risks theocracy or exclusion of minorities.

4. Common elements across definitions:

Claiming divine favor or covenant for the nation.

Identifying the true national identity with Christianity.

Seeking to shape civil government in accordance with Christian values or doctrine.

So in short:

Christian nationalism is the blending of Christianity with national identity and political authority—sometimes imagined as heritage, sometimes as destiny, sometimes as law.

It’s the modern descendant of Christendom (church + state fused) and Puritan covenant theology (nation under God’s blessing/curse), reshaped for American politics.

People hear “Christian nationalism” and think it just means generic “God and country” patriotism. But there’s a sharp distinction between civil religion and Christian nationalism.

Civil Religion (softer, symbolic)

Term coined by sociologist Robert Bellah (1967).

It’s a broad, nonsectarian use of religious language and ritual to give meaning to the nation.

Examples:

“In God We Trust” on money.

“Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Presidential inaugural prayers.

Lincoln’s “almost chosen people” rhetoric.

Function: To unite diverse citizens around a shared, generic theism.

Religion here is civic glue, not a blueprint for law.

Christian Nationalism (sharper, directive)

Goes beyond symbols and asserts that the nation’s identity and laws must explicitly align with Christianity.

Examples:

Claiming the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired as a Christian covenant.

Arguing that civil law should enforce biblical morality (e.g., Sabbath laws, abortion bans framed as covenant faithfulness).

Calling for formal recognition of Christ’s rule in government.

Function: To privilege Christianity as the national faith, often implying other faiths (or unbelief) are second-class.

Religion here is a political order, not just a cultural symbol.

The Key Difference

Civil religion says: “God bless America” (general, inclusive, symbolic).

Christian nationalism says: “America must obey Jesus Christ as King” (specific, authoritative, often exclusive).

So the contrast is:Civil religion is a ceremonial umbrella; Christian nationalism is a political program.

Did the Mayflower Compact Have Anything To Do with Christian Nationalism?

The Mayflower Compact (1620) is often invoked in debates about whether America is a “Christian nation,” but its context matters a lot.

What the Mayflower Compact actually said

The Compact begins with explicitly religious language:

In the name of God, Amen.”

“For the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our King and Country…”

Then it sets up a political covenant:

The signers agree to “covenant and combine ourselves into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation…”

So yes, the Pilgrims framed their colony as Christian in purpose.

Limitations of calling it a “national foundation”

Scale – The Mayflower Compact was for one small colony (Plymouth). It wasn’t binding for Jamestown, Massachusetts Bay, or the other colonies, much less the entire later United States.

Plurality of colonial motives – Not all colonies were founded “for the advancement of the Christian faith.”

Jamestown (1607) was mostly economic.

Pennsylvania (1681) was pluralist (Quakers, but open to other groups).

Rhode Island (1636, Roger Williams) explicitly rejected enforced religion.

U.S. Constitution silence – By 1787, when the Constitution was written, the framers deliberately left God and Christianity unmentioned. That was a break from the covenantal language of the 1600s.

Why the Compact still matters

It’s the first written framework of self-government in English America.

It shows how covenant theology (a Puritan/Separatist idea) bled into political organization.

It influenced later New England political culture, where religion and civil covenants went hand in hand.

So does it prove America is a Christian nation?

Yes, if you mean: some of the earliest European settlers saw themselves as on a Christian mission, and they used covenantal, biblical language in founding documents.

No, if you mean: the United States as a political nation, founded in 1776/1787, is legally based on the Mayflower Compact. By then, the Founders had chosen Enlightenment natural rights language, not covenantal theology.

Conclusion: The Mayflower Compact is part of America’s cultural-religious heritage, but not its constitutional foundation. To call the U.S. a Christian nation based on it is a stretch, unless you’re tracing cultural influence rather than legal origin.

How many Different Types of Puritans were there in America?

Puritans in America weren’t a single homogeneous group with a fixed number of “types,” but rather a range of overlapping movements, subgroups, and denominations that developed in the 17th century.

Major Puritan groupings in early America

Congregationalists (Particular Baptists in some contexts): The dominant Puritan wing in Massachusetts and around New England. They emphasized local church autonomy (congregational polity) and sought to purify the Church of England of what they saw as remnants of Catholic practice. Within Congregationalism, there were variations in piety, church discipline, and social outlook.

Nonconformists within Puritanism (Non-Separating Congregationalists): Puritans who wanted to reform the Church of England and maintain loyalty to its structures while pushing for further purification. They tended to align with Massachusetts and similar colonies, seeking reform within the church rather than separation.

Separatists (Pilgrims) - a more radical stream: Some Puritans who believed the Church of England could not be sufficiently reformed and chose to separate from it entirely. The most famous example in American history is the Pilgrims who settled Plymouth Colony (1620). They later allied with other Puritans but retained distinctive separatist impulses.

Regional varieties within New England Puritanism: While sharing core beliefs, colonies and towns developed local flavors—more strict enforcement of church covenants in some towns (e.g., Massachusetts Bay Colony) and somewhat looser or more tolerant approaches in others (though overall patronage favored conformity).

Merrimack/Revival-era subgroups (later) within Puritan heritage: By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, some Puritan-descended communities influenced by revivalist currents would contribute to broader Protestant evangelistic movements, though this is more of a continuity with Puritan legacy than a separate “type.”

Important clarifications

Puritanism vs. separatism: Puritans generally sought to purify and reform the church rather than break away from it completely, but a subset (Separatists) did choose separation. The term “Puritan” in American history is often used broadly for early New England religious culture, not just a single denomination.

Different names and labels: In historical writing, you might see terms like “Congregationalists,” “Puritan reformers,” “Nonconformists,” or “Separatists.” These reflect different emphases within Puritanism rather than entirely distinct faiths.

Quick summary

There isn’t a fixed number of “types,” but the main distinctions are typically framed as:

Congregationalists (non-separating Puritans)

Separatists (Pilgrims)

Nonconformist reformers within Puritanism

Regional variations within New England Puritanism

How many of these Puritans believed in Religious Freedom?

Generally speaking, very few Puritans in early America believed in what we would recognize today as religious freedom, or the separation of church and state.

Here's why and what nuances exist:

The Puritan Ideal: A "City Upon a Hill"

Theocratic Vision: Most Puritans came to America not to establish religious freedom for all, but to establish a society based entirely on their own religious principles. They aimed to create a "City Upon a Hill" – a model Christian commonwealth governed by God's laws as they understood them.

No Separation of Church and State: For the dominant Puritan groups (especially in the Massachusetts Bay Colony), there was no concept of separating church and state. In fact, they believed the state had a duty to uphold and enforce true religion. Civil laws often reflected biblical laws, and church membership or adherence to Puritan doctrine was often a prerequisite for political participation (e.g., voting or holding office).

Intolerance for Dissent: Because they believed they possessed the ultimate truth, they generally had little tolerance for religious dissent within their own communities. They saw differing religious views not just as errors, but as dangerous threats to the spiritual purity and social order of their holy experiment.

Key Figures and Exceptions (and why they were exceptions)

The most prominent example of someone advocating for what approached religious freedom was Roger Williams.

Roger Williams and Rhode Island:

Williams was a Puritan minister who arrived in Massachusetts Bay but soon clashed with the authorities.

He argued for "soul liberty" – the idea that an individual's conscience should be free from coercion in matters of faith. He believed that forcing people to worship or conform to a particular religion was "rape of the soul."

Crucially, he also argued for a "wall of separation" between the church and the "wilderness of the world" (the state). He believed that mixing the two corrupted the church.

For these radical views (among others), he was banished from Massachusetts Bay and went on to found the colony of Rhode Island. Rhode Island became a haven for religious dissenters and explicitly guaranteed religious freedom for all its inhabitants – a truly revolutionary concept for its time.

Anne Hutchinson

Another famous dissenter, Anne Hutchinson, also challenged the established religious authorities in Massachusetts Bay. While her primary disagreements were theological (related to "antinomianism" and the role of good works in salvation), her banishment also highlights the lack of tolerance for differing religious interpretations within the dominant Puritan structure. She wasn't necessarily arguing for broad religious freedom in the same way Williams was, but her case demonstrated the consequences of challenging the religious establishment.

Why the Misconception?

The idea that Puritans came to America for religious freedom is a common misconception. While they sought their own religious freedom from persecution in England, they generally did not extend that freedom to others once they had established their own communities. Their goal was freedom to practice their religion unhindered, not freedom of religion for all.

In summary

The vast majority of Puritans in America did not believe in religious freedom as we understand it today.

Their goal was to establish a society based on their specific religious beliefs, which often led to intolerance of dissent.

Roger Williams³ was the most significant exception, arguing for "soul liberty" and a separation of church and state, leading to the founding of Rhode Island as a beacon of religious toleration.

Who were the Puritan Ministers Who Opposed The Constitution?

That was Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), a Congregationalist minister, theologian, and later president of Yale College.

Context

Dwight was the grandson of Jonathan Edwards (the Great Awakening preacher).

A strong Federalist and New England Calvinist, he worried that the U.S. Constitution (1787) deliberately left God and Christ unmentioned.

For many New England Puritans (and their heirs), this looked like a dangerous experiment in godless government.

His Criticism

Dwight thundered from the pulpit that the Constitution “dared to exclude the Most High from a share in its counsels.”

He warned that a government without acknowledgment of God would collapse into immorality and infidelity.

In one sermon, he lamented:

“We formed our Constitution without God; without a king, and without a prophet.”

Dwight’s critique shows how deeply covenant theology still shaped New England elites: they believed a nation must explicitly covenant with God for protection.

His voice represents the continuity of Puritan suspicion of secular or pluralist government.

While most Americans accepted the Constitution, ministers like Dwight kept alive the dream of a more explicitly Christian civil order.

Timothy Dwight wasn’t alone. Several prominent ministers in the late 18th and early 19th century attacked the U.S. Constitution (or the government under it) because it lacked explicit recognition of God or Christ. Here are some notable ones:

John Mason (1725–1792)

New York Presbyterian

Criticized the “godless” nature of the Constitution.

Argued that excluding Christ from civil government was a rejection of divine authority.

Called for a national acknowledgment of God to secure His blessing.

Joseph Strong (1749–1834)

Congregationalist, Hartford, Connecticut

Preached sermons warning that the new government’s omission of God would bring judgment.

Emphasized that republics without religion soon decay into vice.

Ezra Stiles (1727–1795)

President of Yale College (predecessor to Dwight)

While more moderate, he also worried that a Constitution silent about God lacked the covenantal grounding of earlier colonial compacts like the Mayflower Compact or state constitutions.

Nathaniel Emmons (1745–1840)

Congregationalist of Massachusetts

Fiercely opposed the Constitution in his preaching because it separated government from explicit Christian covenant obligations.

Later echoes:

National Reform Association (founded 1864)

Post–Civil War ministers (Presbyterians especially) revived the same complaint: the Constitution was “godless” and needed a Christian amendment to acknowledge Christ’s kingship.

Summary

Besides Dwight, ministers like John Mason, Joseph Strong, Ezra Stiles, and Nathaniel Emmons all sounded alarms about the Constitution’s lack of Christian acknowledgment. They stood in the Puritan covenant tradition, where leaving God unnamed in civil covenants was seen as courting disaster.

Quotes From Their Writings

Here are some direct sermon excerpts (or very close paraphrases from preserved texts) from Puritan and Congregationalist ministers who attacked the U.S. Constitution as “godless” or insufficiently Christian. These come from late 18th–early 19th century pulpit responses:

1. Timothy Dwight⁴ (1752–1817, Yale President)

Sermon (1798):

“We formed our Constitution without God, without a king, and without a prophet. From the beginning, we forgot Him, and we must expect to be forgotten.”

Dwight saw the Constitution as dangerous because it omitted God, and he warned of divine judgment on the nation for this exclusion.

2. John Mason⁵ (1725–1792, Presbyterian minister, New York)

On the Constitution:

“How insulting is it to heaven, to pass over in entire silence the King of kings and Lord of lords, as though He were unknown in our land, or undeserving of notice.”

He argued that a covenant people cannot omit Christ without national peril.

3. Joseph Strong⁶ (1749–1834, Congregationalist, Hartford, CT)

Thanksgiving Sermon (late 1780s):

“To neglect the Most High in our national compact, to leave Him unacknowledged in the very bond of our Union, is to forget the source of all authority and protection.”

Strong warned that no republic could endure without acknowledging divine rule.

4. Ezra Stiles⁷ (1727–1795, President of Yale, predecessor to Dwight)

In a 1783 election sermon (anticipating the new government):

“A people may flourish in their councils and arms, but unless the favor of Heaven be secured by public acknowledgment, their fabric is founded on the sand.”

While not an outright opponent, he clearly feared a secular frame would be unstable.

5. Nathaniel Emmons⁸ (1745–1840, Congregationalist, Massachusetts)

Sermon (1790s):

“A Constitution that makes no mention of the true God is an anomaly among Christian nations, and cannot long prosper. Our fathers covenanted with Him; shall we, their children, renounce His name?”

Later Echo: National Reform Association (founded 1864)

Their literature called the Constitution “a godless document” and sought an amendment recognizing Christ’s kingship:

“The nation has dethroned Christ. Until His authority is acknowledged in the Constitution, we remain under a fearful curse.”

Summary

These ministers believed the Constitution’s silence about God wasn’t neutrality, but rebellion. They came from the Puritan-covenantal mindset: if a people do not covenant explicitly with God, He will withdraw protection and bring judgment.

Examples of Christian Persecution in America

That’s a tricky phrase, because compared to much of the world, American Christians have enjoyed extraordinary liberty. Still, depending on what one means by persecution, there are some clear historical examples where Christians — or certain kinds of Christians — suffered harassment, suppression, or even violence in the U.S.

1. Colonial-era persecution (17th century)

Puritans vs. dissenters in Massachusetts Bay

Quakers were fined, whipped, banished, or even executed (Mary Dyer, 1660).

Baptists like Obadiah Holmes⁹ were whipped in Boston (1651) for preaching without permission.

Anglican establishment in Virginia

Dissenters (especially Baptists) were jailed, beaten, and fined for preaching without a license in the 1760s–70s. These persecutions helped fuel Baptist support for Jefferson and Madison’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786).

2. Anti-Catholic violence (19th century)

Know-Nothing movement¹⁰ (1840s–50s): mobs burned Catholic churches and convents, accusing Catholics of being un-American agents of the Pope.

Philadelphia Bible Riots (1844): at least 13 killed after Catholics objected to Protestant Bible readings in public schools.

Catholic immigrants (Irish, Italian, Polish) often faced discrimination in housing, jobs, and politics, fueled by Protestant suspicion.

3. Mormon persecution (19th century)

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) faced severe violence:

Missouri Mormon War (1838): Governor Boggs issued an “extermination order” against Mormons, forcing expulsion.

Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, was murdered by a mob in Illinois (1844).

The U.S. Army marched on Utah in 1857 (the “Utah War”).

Mormons were repeatedly driven from state to state before settling in Utah.

4. Catholic/Jehovah’s Witness legal cases (20th century)

Jehovah’s Witnesses faced arrests and mob attacks in the 1930s–40s for refusing to salute the flag or serve in the military.

Supreme Court cases like West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) upheld their right to refuse the pledge on religious grounds.

Catholics: in some areas, faced exclusion from office or schools until well into the 20th century.

5. Modern claims of persecution (late 20th–21st century)

Legal battles over prayer in public schools, display of the Ten Commandments, and Christian-owned businesses refusing services for same-sex weddings.

Many conservative Christians frame these restrictions as persecution, though courts tend to see them as enforcement of neutrality.

Social hostility (mockery, marginalization) is sometimes described as “soft persecution,” though it lacks the violence of earlier centuries.

Summary

Hard persecution (whippings, killings, legal bans): Puritan New England, colonial Virginia, Catholic and Mormon 19th-century experiences, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the WWII era.

Soft persecution (exclusion, hostility, lawsuits): More common in modern times, it is often debated whether it qualifies as persecution or just cultural pushback in a pluralist society.

Who Are The Leaders of Christian Nationalism?

There’s no centralized “Christian Nationalism headquarters” with universally agreed-upon leaders, but there are several individuals, thinkers, and movements that are often identified as key influencers, spokespeople, or ideologues in the contemporary Christian nationalist (or aligned) space. Below is a categorization and examples, plus caveats and tensions. (As always: influence doesn’t equal consensus or purity; Christian nationalism is a contested terrain.)

Categories of Influence

To organize it, it helps to see the different spheres in which “leadership” is claimed or perceived:

Theological/ideological thinkers, writers, and pastors who articulate and lay out the theoretical foundation of Christian nationalism or the theology of social order under Christ.

Activists / public figures – those who publicly promote Christian nationalist ideals via media, politics, events, and preaching.

Institutional / movement nodes – groups, networks, or churches that serve as hubs for Christian nationalist ideas and practices.

Political operatives / office-holders – politicians, civil servants, or policy people who carry or implement Christian nationalist ideas into public life.

Examples of Leaders / Influencers

Here are a few names frequently cited by journalists, scholars, watchdog groups, or within Christian nationalist circles. (Note: inclusion here does not mean every item fully embraces everything critics attribute; sometimes the label is contested.)

Important Nuances & Critiques

Overlap doesn’t equal complete embrace: Some figures may support parts of a Christian nationalist agenda (e.g., religious influence in public life) without endorsing more radical proposals (e.g., abolishing religious freedom for non-Christians).

Self-identification vs external labeling: Many of those identified by critics do not use the label “Christian nationalist” for themselves, or they redefine it. Labeling is a political act.

Ideological spectrum: Within “Christian nationalism” there’s a range — from softer cultural influence (e.g. Bible in schools, Christian symbols in public life) to stronger forms (Christian law supplanting or dominating secular law).

Intersection with white identity politics: Scholars such as Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry argue that in the U.S., Christian nationalism often overlaps with white Christian identity politics, meaning “Christian nationalism” is sometimes a vehicle for racialized claims about national belonging. ()

Domestic and global variation: Christian nationalism isn’t unique to the U.S. — but each national movement has local leaders, theological traditions, and political contexts. (E.g., Viktor Orbán in Hungary is often discussed in global Christian nationalist discourse.) ()

The Pledge of Allegiance “In God We Trust”

The phrase “In God We Trust” has a surprisingly layered history, moving from a Civil War hymn into law, money, and eventually the national motto.

1. Antecedents (Early 19th century)

Before the exact phrase, American coins sometimes used religious mottos like “An Appeal to God” (on Revolutionary-era currency).

But the formal phrase “In God We Trust” seems to crystallize mid-19th century.

2. Civil War origins (1860s)

During the Civil War, a surge of public religious sentiment led to petitions asking the government to put God’s name on money.

Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase received letters from ministers and citizens. One Pennsylvania pastor wrote in 1861: “What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction! Would it not be a proper time to recognize Almighty God in some form on our coins?”

Chase ordered the Mint director to come up with options. In 1864, Congress approved the two-cent coin bearing “In God We Trust” — the first official U.S. coin with the motto.

3. Late 19th-century expansion

By 1873, the Coinage Act made the motto optional but widely used. Various coins bore it across the late 19th century.

It was seen less as sectarian Christianity and more as a statement of “civil religion,” fitting the mood of post-Civil War nationalism.

4. Early 20th-century reaffirmations

In 1908, after Theodore Roosevelt initially resisted its use (he thought invoking God on coins bordered on irreverence), Congress made the motto mandatory on certain coins.

By 1938, it became standard across nearly all U.S. coinage.

5. Cold War era (1950s)

With the U.S. defining itself against “godless communism,” Congress pushed religion into national identity.

1954: “Under God” added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

1956: Congress passed a law making “In God We Trust” the official national motto, replacing “E Pluribus Unum.”

1957: The motto began appearing on paper currency for the first time (on $1 bills).

6. Legal controversies

Courts have repeatedly upheld the motto against Establishment Clause challenges by treating it as “ceremonial deism” — a traditional, nonsectarian expression of heritage rather than a literal religious establishment.

Key rulings: Aronow v. United States (1970) and later cases reaffirmed that it is “patriotic or ceremonial” rather than religious coercion.

7. Today

It remains on all U.S. currency.

It’s also been adopted by some state governments on license plates and public buildings.

Critics argue it blurs church and state, while defenders say it reflects America’s heritage.

Summary arc:

Born in the Civil War (1864 coins),

Expanded gradually in the 19th–20th centuries,

Elevated to official status in the Cold War (1956),

Sustained today as “ceremonial tradition,” even though contested.

The original 1861 letter to Salmon P. Chase, who first requested God’s name on the coins. It’s a fascinating little window into how the phrase was born.

Here’s the moment of birth:

In November 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, a minister from Pennsylvania, wrote to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. He urged the government to put a religious acknowledgment on U.S. coins in the midst of the Civil War. Here’s a portion of his letter (archived at the National Archives):

“You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction! Would it not be a proper time to recognize Almighty God in some form on our coins?… This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart, I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.”

Chase responded quickly. On November 20, 1861, he instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint:

“No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.”

That directive led to design proposals, and in 1864, the two-cent piece became the first coin minted with the words “In God We Trust.”

So the phrase’s origin story is quite specific:

A pastor worried the Union was “godless.”

The Treasury Secretary (a devout Christian himself) embraced the idea.

Within three years, the words were stamped into metal — literally embedding religious civil identity into the nation’s pocket change.

Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk is a name that comes up a lot in the Christian nationalism conversation, though, like many modern figures, he’s more often labeled one by critics than self-identifying with the term.

Who he is

Born in 1993, the founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative student organization.

Started as a youthful activist on free markets and small government; has since become a prominent conservative media personality, podcast host, and political speaker.

Has close ties to evangelical churches, especially megachurches and Reformed/charismatic networks.

Christian Nationalism Connection

Critics’ view:

Scholars and watchdog groups say Kirk’s rhetoric blends Christianity and nationalism in ways consistent with Christian nationalism.

Examples:

He frequently says America is founded as a “Christian nation.”

Argues the Bible is the source of U.S. law and liberty.

TPUSA Faith branch encourages pastors to “take America back for God.”

His speaking tours often combine worship, political rallies, and Christian rhetoric.

His own framing:

Kirk avoids calling himself a “Christian nationalist” (since it’s often used as a slur).

He instead frames it as defending “America’s Christian founding” and “biblical values in politics.”

He insists this is about heritage and liberty, not about imposing a theocracy.

Examples of statements

Has said: “We don’t have to apologize for being a Christian nation. We are founded on biblical principles.”

Warns that secularism, Marxism, and “woke culture” are attempts to destroy Christian America.

Positions his activism as both patriotic and spiritual — especially through TPUSA Faith, which partners with churches and pastors.

Summary

By scholarly definitions (like Whitehead & Perry’s), yes: Kirk frequently echoes Christian nationalist themes (Christian identity fused with American identity, law, and destiny).

By self-identification, no: he avoids the label and frames it as simply “Christian patriotism” or “heritage.”

So: Charlie Kirk operates in the Christian nationalist ecosystem (especially with TPUSA Faith), even if he doesn’t wear the badge.

Three Faces of Christian Nationalism

How They Differ

Kirk: Politics first, faith as cultural glue. “Rally the troops.”

Wallnau: Spiritual warfare first, politics as divine battlefield. “Prophesy the victory.”

Wolfe: Theology first, politics as a logical extension of Reformed natural law. “Build Christendom 2.0.”

How They Converge

All three want:

Christianity is privileged in public life.

America (or nations in general) is defined as Christian.

Opposition to pluralism/secular neutrality.

They just come at it through different modes of authority: Kirk through activism, Wallnau through prophecy, Wolfe through theology.

What Was The History of the Phrase” Under God”?

The phrase “under God” in the American context has a curious double life: it existed in political-religious rhetoric long before it was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Let’s trace the arc.

1. Early uses (18th–19th century)

The phrase “under God” is an old English idiom, used in sermons and speeches to mean “subject to God’s authority.”

Abraham Lincoln made it famous in U.S. political rhetoric. In the Gettysburg Address (1863), he spoke of a “new birth of freedom… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

After Lincoln, “under God” circulated in patriotic and religious writings, but not as an official motto.

2. The Pledge before “under God”

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy¹⁶ (a Baptist minister, though with socialist leanings).

It read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Note: no mention of God at all.

3. Cold War context (1950s)

In the early 1950s, America was in an ideological struggle with “godless communism.”

Religious leaders (notably the Knights of Columbus,¹⁷ a Catholic fraternal group) began inserting “under God” in their private recitations of the Pledge (starting in 1951).

Business and civic leaders — Conrad Hilton, Charles Wilson, and groups like the Religious Heritage of America Foundation — also backed the push.

4. Official adoption (1954)

February 1954: Rev. George Docherty, preaching in Washington, delivered a sermon with President Eisenhower in attendance, arguing that the Pledge was incomplete without recognition of God.

Eisenhower agreed, and Congress passed the amendment.

June 14, 1954 (Flag Day): Eisenhower signed the law adding “under God” into the Pledge. He declared:

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

5. Aftermath

The phrase became a Cold War shibboleth: to be American was to be “under God.”

It aligned with other moves:

1956: “In God We Trust” became the official national motto.

1957: First paper currency with “In God We Trust.”

Critics since then have argued that adding “under God” violated the principle of church–state separation, but courts (so far) have upheld it as “ceremonial” rather than coercive.

Summary arc

Lincoln (1863): first iconic use in a national setting.

Bellamy’s pledge (1892): no God included.

Cold War (1950s): businessmen, clergy, and politicians lobbied to add it.

1954: Eisenhower signed it into law — “one nation, under God, indivisible…”

Are There Christian Nationalists Who Wish to End Religious Freedom?

Yes — at least some self-described Christian nationalists, and certainly many critics of the movement, openly wrestle with the tension between religious freedom for all versus privileging Christianity in law and culture.

Here’s how it breaks down historically and today:

1. Early American Puritans and “Christian nation” logic

The Puritans in Massachusetts Bay thought of their colony as a covenant with God.

They had no concept of religious freedom in the modern sense: dissenters like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were banished, Quakers were whipped, and even executed.

In this sense, they were proto-Christian nationalists who explicitly restricted freedom for religious minorities.

2. Founders’ settlement

By 1787, the Constitution deliberately did not enshrine Christianity and included Article VI (“no religious test”) plus the First Amendment.

Religious liberty was framed as universal — for Christians, Jews, Muslims, even unbelievers.

This was a direct rejection of the Puritan/Christendom model.

3. Modern Christian nationalism (20th–21st century)

Gerald L. K. Smith (1940s): His “Christian Nationalist Crusade”¹⁸ was openly hostile to Jews, Catholics, and atheists. Religious freedom wasn’t the goal — dominance was.

Cold War “Christian America” (1950s–70s): Less about stripping freedoms, more about branding America as religious against communism.

Contemporary advocates (e.g., Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism):

Argue that civil government should privilege Christianity as the cultural and legal framework.

Some envision tolerance for minorities, but not equal standing.

Wolfe, for example, rejects liberal pluralism and says other religions may exist but should not be allowed to undermine public Christianity.

4. Key tension

Many Christian nationalists insist they don’t want to abolish religious freedom — they say they want to restore America’s Christian “heritage.”

But their definition of “religious freedom” is often freedom for Christians to dominate public life. For others, it may mean tolerated but marginalized.

Critics argue this is not true religious liberty, but a return to a kind of Christendom model.

Summary

Yes, there are and have been Christian nationalists who wish to curtail religious freedom in the sense of equal standing for all faiths. They often call for:

privileging Christianity in law,

restricting pluralism,

or even denying non-Christians full civic equality.

Others claim they only want a “Christian public square,” but in practice, this blurs into limiting freedoms for everyone else.

What is the Origin of Christian Nationalism

“Christian Nationalism” is a phrase that looks old but is actually a hybrid of some very modern anxieties strapped onto older religious-political impulses. Its origins depend on what level of depth you want to trace:

Deep roots: Christendom

As soon as Christianity moved from a persecuted minority to a state religion under Constantine (4th century), the idea that “church and empire” were two halves of the same whole began. That fusion—Christendom—set the precedent: political power was sacralized, and religion provided legitimacy to the state. Medieval Europe’s kings ruled by divine right, and the Reformation didn’t dissolve this instinct; it simply re-sorted it into Protestant and Catholic states.

Early America: covenant nation language

Puritans arriving in New England in the 1600s imagined themselves as a “New Israel.” John Winthrop’s¹⁹ 1630 sermon spoke of a “city upon a hill,”²⁰ blending civic identity with divine mission. Covenantal language and Old Testament typology were baked into American self-consciousness. This wasn’t quite “Christian nationalism” as we use the term today, but it was a seed: America was to be God’s instrument in history.

19th-century Protestant nationalism

In the United States, Protestant majorities often equated “Christian” with “American.” Public schools used Protestant Bibles; political rhetoric leaned on providential destiny (Manifest Destiny is essentially a nationalist theology). Immigrants—Catholics, Jews—were often told they must conform to “Christian America.” During the Civil War, both North and South invoked divine blessing on their national causes.

20th-century developments

The phrase “Christian Nation” was used explicitly by groups like the National Reform Association²¹ (founded in 1864, active into the 20th century), who pushed for a constitutional amendment acknowledging Christ’s rule over the U.S. In the Cold War, religion was deployed as a national identity marker against “godless communism,”—leading to things like “In God We Trust” on currency (1956) and “under God” in the Pledge (1954).

Modern “Christian Nationalism” as a label

The term itself—“Christian nationalism”—becomes common in scholarship and political journalism only in the late 20th and early 21st century. It’s often used critically to describe a movement that argues America has a special divine mandate, that U.S. institutions should explicitly privilege Christianity, and that political life should be ordered around a particular reading of biblical morality. In some circles (especially evangelical and Reformed), people will own the label positively, arguing for reclaiming a Christian public square; in others, it’s a warning term used to describe a fusion of religion and authoritarian politics.

So: its roots lie in Christendom²² and Puritan covenant theology,²³ its American branch grew out of Protestant dominance and manifest destiny rhetoric, and its contemporary form solidified during Cold War civil religion and the culture wars.

It’s a tree with medieval roots, Puritan grafts, 19th-century fertilizer, and a very 21st-century branding.

We could not locate a definitive, well-documented case of the first person in America to use the phrase “Christian nationalism.” The term is relatively modern, and earlier actors used its conceptual components (Christian nation, Christendom, Christian identity in politics) without that exact label.

Here’s what I found:

Gerald L. K. Smith²⁴ (active mid-20th century) founded a “Christian Nationalist Party” and a “Christian Nationalist Crusade.” He is often cited in histories of Christian nationalist movements in the U.S. as a person who explicitly claimed the label. ()

Some sources say “Christian Nationalism” first appeared in print in the late 1800s (though these references don’t name a specific individual) ()

More broadly, historians trace the idea of America as a “Christian nation” back to the early republic and before, but without use of the exact modern label “Christian nationalism.” ()

So, if I must pick a candidate, Gerald L. K. Smith is a strong contender among the earliest Americans to adopt “Christian Nationalist” expressly. But it likely wasn’t the first.

Timeline of the Phrase of Christian Nationalism

Let’s sketch this as a timeline showing how the label “Christian nation/Christian nationalism” moved through different hands and meanings in America.

1600s–1700s: Covenant Language

Puritans describe New England as a “New Israel,” a covenant community bound to God.

The phrase “Christian nation” isn’t used formally, but the idea is baked into early colonial and revolutionary rhetoric.

Late 1700s–1800s: “Christian Nation” Rhetoric

Sermons, pamphlets, and political speeches invoke America as a “Christian nation,” especially in contrast to France’s secular revolution.

1864: The National Reform Association forms to push for a constitutional amendment explicitly declaring the U.S. a Christian nation.

1892: Supreme Court Justice David Brewer, in Holy Trinity v. U.S., declares: “This is a Christian nation.” He later published The United States: A Christian Nation (1905).

1930s–1940s: Gerald L. K. Smith & the “Christian Nationalist Crusade”

Smith coins and organizes around the phrase Christian Nationalist.

His “Christian Nationalist Crusade” (1942) links Protestant identity, populism, and anti-Semitism.

This is the first major explicit use of “Christian nationalism” as a political identity in America.

1950s–1960s: Cold War Civil Religion

The U.S. brands itself against “godless communism.”

“In God We Trust” (1956) and “under God” in the Pledge (1954) codify Christian-national language.

Here, the term Christian nation dominates; Christian nationalism is rarely used in mainstream discourse.

1970s–1990s: Religious Right

Leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Francis Schaeffer argue that America has a Christian heritage that must be reclaimed.

The label “Christian nationalism” is still mostly applied by critics, not by the movement itself.

2000s–2010s: Scholarly & Critical Usage

Historians and sociologists (e.g., Andrew Whitehead, Samuel Perry) begin to use “Christian nationalism” as a framework for describing the fusion of evangelical politics and national identity.

The term becomes a category of analysis rather than a self-owned label.

2020s: Culture War Identity

The phrase explodes in journalism, academia, and politics, often as a warning about theocratic authoritarianism.

Some evangelical and Reformed figures begin to reclaim the label positively (e.g., Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism, 2022).

Summary arc:

Christian nation = old and mainstream, running back to the 18th century.

Christian nationalism = fringe and extremist with Gerald L. K. Smith in the 1940s, resurrected as a critical category by scholars in the 2000s, and now sometimes embraced by conservative writers in the 2020s.

First Use of the Term “Christian Nation”

That’s a different beast, and it runs way deeper in American soil. The phrase “Christian nation” shows up very early—much earlier than “Christian nationalism.”

Here are some key points:

1. Founding Era

The U.S. Constitution (1787) deliberately avoided religious language, but political sermons and public debates still called America a “Christian nation.”

George Washington (1790s): In his presidential writings, he spoke broadly of religion and morality as supports for republican life, but he never called the U.S. a “Christian nation.”

2. Early Legal Usage

1790s–1820s: Sermons and pamphlets (especially by Federalist clergy) began calling the new republic a “Christian nation,” usually in contrast to French revolutionary secularism.

The most famous judicial usage is Supreme Court Justice David Brewer’s line in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892):²⁵ “this is a Christian nation.” Brewer even published a book later titled The United States: A Christian Nation (1905).²⁶

3. Political Sermons and Reform Movements

Early 19th-century preachers (Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Baptist) often described America as a “Christian nation”, covenantally blessed, especially during revivals and missionary rallies.

During the Civil War, both the Union and the Confederacy used the phrase “Christian nation” in speeches and religious appeals.

In 1864, the National Reform Association formed to push for a constitutional amendment explicitly recognizing the U.S. as a “Christian nation.”

4. Legacy

So while the phrase was common in pulpits and newspapers from the late 18th century on, it got its most “official” stamp in Justice Brewer’s 1892 Supreme Court decision. That line became a proof-text for generations afterward.

In short:

First uses: Late 18th / early 19th century sermons and pamphlets.

Most famous crystallization: 1892, Justice Brewer, Holy Trinity v. United States.

Here’s a fuller excerpt from Justice Brewer’s majority opinion in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), showing how he builds toward the famous line, “this is a Christian nation.”

“But beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion, State, or nation can be imputed to any legislation, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language that pervades them all, having a single meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

… These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to … make a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

… We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth — the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions … with prayer; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath; the churches … in every city, town, and hamlet; … the multitude of charitable organizations … under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations … aiming to establish Christian missions … add a volume of unofficial declarations … that this is a Christian nation.”

A few notes of interest (because I enjoy digging in):

These passages are dicta (i.e., not strictly necessary to the legal holding) — Brewer was making a cultural-historical argument layered over the statutory interpretation issue.

He frames “this is a Christian nation” not as a forced legal establishment of Christianity, but as a descriptive claim: a cultural identity borne out in law, custom, and public life.

The strength of Brewer’s rhetorical claim rests on his enumeration of religious elements embedded in public institutions (oaths, prayer, Sabbath laws, church presence).

Brewer’s Holy Trinity c. US 1892

Brewer’s “Christian nation” line from Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892) echoed (or didn’t) in later American jurisprudence:

1. Immediate impact (1890s–early 1900s)

Brewer himself doubled down in his 1905 book The United States: A Christian Nation.

Lower courts and political sermons loved to cite the Holy Trinity as proof that the Supreme Court had declared America officially Christian.

But legally, it was dicta—not binding precedent. Courts recognized it as cultural commentary, not constitutional law.

2. Mid-20th century (1940s–1960s)

The Everson v. Board of Education (1947) case applied the Establishment Clause against states, introducing the “wall of separation between church and state” language (from Jefferson, not the Constitution).

This marks the turning point. Courts no longer leaned on Brewer’s cultural Christianity but instead emphasized neutrality.

Brewer’s “Christian nation” line was quietly sidelined in judicial reasoning.

3. Cold War civil religion

Politically, the 1950s still celebrated America as religious: “In God We Trust” (1956), “under God” in the Pledge (1954).

But courts stayed cautious, stressing civic religion rather than confessional Christianity.

Example: McGowan v. Maryland (1961)²⁷ upheld Sunday closing laws, but on secular grounds (promoting rest and recreation), not because of Christian heritage.

4. Culture-war era (1970s–2000s)

As debates over prayer in schools, abortion, and Ten Commandments monuments heated up, activists often quoted Brewer’s 1892 line as “proof” of America’s Christian foundation.

But the Supreme Court never revived it. Instead, cases like Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) established strict tests for government entanglement with religion.

5. Today (2000s–2020s)

Holy Trinity v. U.S. is still cited in popular Christian nationalist arguments, especially the “this is a Christian nation” dictum.

Academically and legally, it’s treated as an outlier—an artifact of its time, reflecting 19th-century Protestant consensus more than enduring law.

Modern courts, especially after cases like Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) (upholding legislative prayer) and Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) (protecting a coach’s post-game prayer), allow more public religion, but not based on Brewer’s Christian nation dictum.

Summary:

Brewer’s 1892 line lived on in sermons, politics, and public debates, but it was never a constitutional principle. By the mid-20th century, courts pivoted to religious neutrality, making Brewer’s “Christian nation” pronouncement more of a rhetorical relic than a legal foundation.

Would you like me to line up Brewer’s dicta next to Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor (as used in Everson) so you can see how two different metaphors shaped the American conversation on church and state?

Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892) — Justice David Brewer

Context: A case about whether a church could hire a foreign pastor under an immigration labor law.

Brewer’s famous passage (dicta):

“These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

Meaning: America’s laws, customs, and institutions reflect Christianity’s dominant cultural role.

Function: Descriptive — not saying Christianity is the legally established religion, but claiming it is the civilizational bedrock.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) — Justice Hugo Black (citing Jefferson)

Context: A case on whether public funds could reimburse transportation to parochial schools.

Black quotes Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Meaning: The Establishment Clause prevents the government from favoring or establishing religion.

Function: Prescriptive — warning government to stay out of religious establishment, even if religion dominates culturally.

Contrast

Brewer (1892): America is, as a matter of fact, a Christian nation in heritage and institutions.

Jefferson/Black (1947): America must, as a matter of law, keep government and religion separate to protect freedom.

Brewer’s metaphor: Christian foundation.

Jefferson/Black’s metaphor: Protective wall.

Historical swing: Brewer reflects the 19th-century Protestant consensus, where Christianity was taken as cultural glue. By 1947, Black (via Jefferson) reflects a pluralist constitutional reading, where the state must not assume or impose a Christian identity even if culture still leans Christian.

That tension — cultural Christianity vs. legal neutrality — still frames debates today.

Did Any Of The Founding Fathers Deny that The United States was a Christian Nation?

Yes — several of the American founders explicitly denied that the United States was a “Christian nation” in any legal or covenantal sense, even though many of them respected Christianity culturally. The record is mixed: some spoke of America in providential or religious terms, but others were adamant that the government was secular.

Here are the clearest denials:

1. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797)

Negotiated under Washington’s presidency, ratified unanimously by the Senate during John Adams’s administration.

Article 11 reads:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

This was an official diplomatic declaration, meant to assure Muslim states in North Africa that America had no religious establishment.

2. Thomas Jefferson

Wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1777, adopted 1786): government should not compel anyone “to frequent or support any religious worship.”

In his private letters, he mocked the idea of national religious establishment. He saw America as built on natural rights, not a Christian covenant.

3. James Madison

Called religious liberty an “unalienable right” in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785).

Opposed government proclamations of prayer and fasting, saying it blurred church–state boundaries.

4. Benjamin Franklin²⁸

Though personally theistic and respectful of Christianity, he was clear that government should not enforce religious tests. At the Constitutional Convention (1787), he famously proposed prayer, but he accepted the godless neutrality of the final document.

5. George Washington

In his 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport,²⁹ he assured them:

“The Government of the United States… gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

While he spoke of Providence often, he avoided calling America a Christian nation.

In short:

Some founders (like John Jay, later Supreme Court Chief Justice) leaned toward calling America a Christian people.

But others — Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams — along with the Treaty of Tripoli — flatly denied that America was a Christian nation in any legal or covenantal sense.

It’s the old tension: cultural Christianity vs. constitutional secularism.

Was Atheism Tolerated In the US Constitution?

Yes — and this is one of the most striking features of the U.S. Constitution compared to almost every government charter of its time. The framers deliberately created a system where atheism, deism, Judaism, Islam, or any other religious position could be legally tolerated.

Here’s how:

1. No religious test clause (Article VI, Clause 3)

“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This was revolutionary. In Europe, officeholding usually required oaths affirming Christianity (and often a specific denomination).

The Constitution said: belief in God, church membership, or even religion itself could never be made a requirement for federal office. That meant atheists, at least in principle, could hold office.

2. First Amendment (1791)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

While written later as part of the Bill of Rights, it reinforced the neutrality of the federal government toward belief and unbelief.

Together with Article VI, it meant the U.S. government was secular by design—not anti-religious, but religion-blind.

3. Reactions at the time

Many Anti-Federalists hated this neutrality. In ratification debates (1787–88), critics complained that without a religious test, “Jews, Turks, and even atheists” could hold office.

Federalists (like James Iredell in North Carolina) defended the clause, saying liberty demanded that even those with unpopular beliefs be eligible.

4. State-level complications

Some early state constitutions did still require belief in God or Christianity for state officeholding (e.g., North Carolina, Maryland, Massachusetts).

Over time, these restrictions were struck down as incompatible with the federal Constitution and later Supreme Court rulings (notably Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961,³⁰ which struck Maryland’s requirement to affirm belief in God).

So to answer directly:Yes, atheism was tolerated at the federal level in the Constitution. While socially scorned in the 18th century, legally, the founders left open the door to unbelievers in public life by banning religious tests. It’s one of the most radical breaks from Christendom in the founding document.

Endnotes

1. Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (Oxford, 2020) by Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry is the key sociological study of Christian nationalism in modern America. It’s very different from Stephen Wolfe’s book—it’s descriptive, not prescriptive. Here’s the outline:
   
   1. Aim of the book
   To measure what “Christian nationalism” is in the U.S. today.
   To show how it shapes politics, culture, and religious identity.
   To argue that it’s less about theology and more about fusing national identity with a certain vision of Christianity.
   
   2. Definition of Christian nationalism
   They define it as:
   “A cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life.”
   So it’s not just religion; it’s a political-cultural project.
   
   3. Measuring it
   The authors developed a survey instrument with questions like:
   Should the federal government declare the U.S. a Christian nation?
   Should biblical law be a foundation of U.S. law?
   Should prayer be allowed in public schools?
   Based on answers, Americans fall into four categories:
   Rejecters (oppose Christian nationalism)
   Resisters (lean against it)
   Accommodators (sympathetic but not rigid)
   Ambassadors (strong advocates).
   
   4. Findings
   Christian nationalism strongly predicts certain political positions:
   Support for stricter immigration control.
   Opposition to gun regulation.
   Support for racial hierarchy and skepticism of civil rights.
   Resistance to LGBTQ rights.
   Close alignment with white evangelical politics and the Republican Party.
   It also correlates with white identity politics — many “ambassadors” of Christian nationalism equate America with white, Protestant heritage.
   
   5. Distinction from religion
   Not all devout Christians are Christian nationalists, and not all Christian nationalists are devout Christians.
   It’s possible to be secular and still push for a Christianized America as cultural identity.
   In other words: it’s about who belongs to the nation, not just theology.
   
   6. Argument
   Christian nationalism is not fringe — it’s a mainstream force in American life.
   It explains much of modern political polarization.
   The authors see it as a threat to democracy because it tends to justify exclusion and authoritarian measures in the name of preserving a “Christian America.”
   
   7. Reception
   Widely cited in journalism and academia.
   Praised for giving language and data to something long observed.
   Criticized by some conservatives as pathologizing patriotism or overgeneralizing evangelical identity.
   
   Summary: Whitehead and Perry argue that Christian nationalism is a powerful cultural-political framework that fuses American identity with Christianity, shaping attitudes on race, immigration, guns, and rights. It’s measurable, widespread, and influential—and, they warn, corrosive to pluralist democracy.
   ↩︎
2. Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism (published 2022) is one of the most explicit, modern attempts to reclaim the label “Christian nationalism” in a positive sense. It’s long, dense, and deliberately provocative, but here’s the gist:
   
   1. Wolfe’s basic claim
   Nations are natural communities given by God.
   Civil government has a God-ordained role not only to maintain order but also to direct a people toward their highest good, which is life with God in Christ.
   Therefore, a Christian nation is both natural (a people organized politically) and supernatural (ordered toward Christ).
   
   2. Definition of Christian nationalism (in Wolfe’s usage)
   Wolfe defines it as:
   “A totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure the good of Christ’s kingdom in the world.”
   So, it’s not just about private faith or culture — it’s about ordering law, institutions, and public life to reflect Christianity.
   
   3. Theological grounding
   Wolfe leans heavily on Reformed Protestant political theology, drawing from Calvin, Turretin, and Protestant scholasticism.
   He argues that nations are part of God’s creation order, not arbitrary human constructs.
   Grace does not abolish nature; it perfects it. Thus, Christianity should perfect the nation.
   
   4. Programmatic elements
   Civil law should reflect Christian morality — e.g., against blasphemy, for Sabbath rest, and marriage defined by Christian norms.
   Magistrates should privilege Christianity, not necessarily outlaw other faiths, but give Christianity pride of place.
   Cultural Christianity matters — public customs, education, and symbols should cultivate a Christian ethos.
   
   5. Polemical edge
   Wolfe is sharply critical of American liberalism, pluralism, and secularism.
   He rejects the “naked public square” and argues that neutrality is impossible — every state privileges some vision of the good.
   He insists that suppressing Christianity in public life is itself a kind of anti-Christian establishment.
   
   6. Controversies
   Wolfe has been accused (especially by critics on both left and right) of flirting with ethno-nationalism, because he emphasizes that nations arise from shared heritage, language, and culture. He argues this isn’t racism but a natural order.
   His vision contrasts with “civil religion” (generic God-language) and with the “Christian America” rhetoric of the 1950s. It is more confessional, explicitly Reformed, and unapologetically theocratic in orientation.
   
   7. Reception
   Among some conservative Reformed circles, it’s been praised as bold and clarifying.
   Among evangelicals and mainstream Christians, it’s been criticized as illiberal, unbiblical, and politically dangerous.
   Academics tend to see it as a modern restatement of Christendom-style Protestant political theology.
   
   In summary, Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism argues that civil government should openly privilege Christianity, shape national life by Christian law and custom, and orient the nation toward Christ. It’s a deliberate break from American pluralist tradition, aiming instead at a neo-Reformed vision of modern Christendom. ↩︎
3. Roger Williams (1603?–1683) is one of the most remarkable and radical voices in early American history — a man who broke from the Puritans and laid down ideas that would shape the American understanding of religious liberty.
   
   Background
   Born in London around 1603, educated at Cambridge.
   Ordained in the Church of England, but influenced by Puritan separatism.
   Emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1631.
   
   Conflict with the Puritans
   Williams quickly ran afoul of Massachusetts leaders because:
   He rejected the idea of a “Christian commonwealth” where church and state were joined.
   He argued the King’s patent was invalid because it stole land from Native peoples without purchase.
   He said the magistrates had no right to punish religious offenses — only civil crimes.
   In 1635, the General Court convicted him of “new and dangerous opinions” and ordered him banished.
   
   Founding of Rhode Island
   Williams fled in midwinter 1636, sheltered by the Wampanoag.
   Founded Providence Plantations, which became the nucleus of Rhode Island.
   Rhode Island was unique in colonial America: it guaranteed religious liberty for all — not just Protestants, but Catholics, Jews, Quakers, even atheists.
   
   Theological Writings
   The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution (1644):
   His most famous work, a blistering attack on state-enforced religion.
   Key line: “An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious.”
   He argued for a “hedge or wall of separation” between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world — decades before Jefferson.
   Later followed up with The Bloudy Tenent Yet More Bloudy (1652), refining his arguments.
   
   Legacy
   Champion of soul liberty (liberty of conscience).
   Forerunner of church-state separation in America.
   His vision directly shaped the Rhode Island charter (1663), which guaranteed full religious freedom.
   Often quoted by Baptists, Quakers, and later Enlightenment thinkers as proof that religion flourishes best when left free.
   
   Summary: Roger Williams was a Puritan turned radical separatist who rejected the idea of a “Christian nation.” He founded Rhode Island as a haven of religious liberty, and his writings — especially The Bloudy Tenent — made him the earliest and strongest American voice for separation of church and state.
   ↩︎
4. Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) is one of the most important “bridge” figures between the Puritan covenantal world of colonial New England and the early republic. He was a Congregationalist minister, poet, theologian, and the eighth president of Yale College (1795–1817). His career tells us a lot about why some religious leaders distrusted the U.S. Constitution.
   
   Background
   Grandson of Jonathan Edwards, the famous Great Awakening preacher.
   Educated at Yale; ordained as a Congregationalist minister.
   Served as a chaplain in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.
   Became president of Yale in 1795, where he fought against the tide of Enlightenment skepticism and trained a generation of Calvinist ministers.
   
   Views on the Constitution
   Dwight was alarmed that the U.S. Constitution (1787) made no reference to God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity.
   In his sermons, he called it a “godless Constitution.”
   One of his most quoted lines:
   “We formed our Constitution without God; without a king, and without a prophet. From the beginning we forgot Him, and we must expect to be forgotten.”
   For Dwight, this omission wasn’t neutrality — it was covenant-breaking. He inherited the Puritan view that nations had obligations to God, and omitting His name meant forfeiting His protection.
   
   Broader Concerns
   Dwight saw Enlightenment rationalism, Deism, and the French Revolution as existential threats.
   At Yale, he launched a counter-revival that historians call the Second Great Awakening in New England.
   His sermons warned that if America abandoned God, immorality, atheism, and social collapse would follow.
   
   Legacy
   Dwight’s opposition to the Constitution’s secularism was influential in New England.
   His revival preaching at Yale converted many students, including future revivalist leaders.
   He kept alive the Puritan suspicion of any government that didn’t covenant explicitly with God.
   His writings became touchstones for later 19th-century efforts (like the National Reform Association) to amend the Constitution and declare America a Christian nation.
   
   In short: Timothy Dwight is the archetypal Puritan-descended minister who attacked the Constitution for being “godless.” He represents the strand of American Christianity that wanted the republic tied explicitly to divine covenant, rather than to Enlightenment natural rights. You can read it here https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Discourse_in_Two_Parts_Delivered_July/UeFBAAAAIAAJ?q=%22timothy+dwight%22+%22sinful%22+1812&gbpv=1&bsq=Without%20God#f=false ↩︎
5. Rev. John Mason (1734–1829) was a leading New York Presbyterian minister who, like Timothy Dwight, was deeply uneasy with the “godless” U.S. Constitution. He wasn’t the only Presbyterian with this concern, but his words are some of the sharpest.
   
   Background
   Born in Scotland; emigrated to New York, where he became pastor of the Scotch Presbyterian Church.
   A strong Calvinist, rooted in the Reformed covenantal vision that nations have a duty to honor God.
   Known for his eloquence and political sermons during and after the Revolution.
   
   On the U.S. Constitution (1787)
   Mason was scandalized that the Constitution omitted God’s name and Christ’s authority. He declared:
   “How insulting is it to heaven, to pass over in entire silence the King of kings and Lord of lords, as though He were unknown in our land, or undeserving of notice.”
   And further:
   “We have formed a government which, in the very face of heaven, is not founded upon the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
   He saw this not just as an oversight, but as rebellion: a republic denying its covenantal duty to Christ.
   
   Theological Reasoning
   Like other covenant theologians, Mason believed that civil government is a divine ordinance.
   To leave God unnamed was to act as though human reason alone were sufficient.
   In his view, America was acting like Israel when it “forsook the Lord” and would inevitably face judgment.
   
   Later Influence
   Mason’s warnings were picked up by later 19th-century Presbyterians who pushed the Christian Amendment movement (National Reform Association, 1860s).
   His words fed into the Presbyterian tradition that kept calling the Constitution a “godless document.”
   
   Summary
   John Mason was one of the most forceful Presbyterian voices against the U.S. Constitution’s religious silence. He epitomized the covenantal mindset: no nation can be safe or blessed unless it openly acknowledges Christ.
   ↩︎
6. Joseph Strong (1749–1834) was a Connecticut Congregationalist minister, part of the generation that bridged Puritan New England and the early republic. Like Timothy Dwight and John Mason, he became alarmed at the U.S. Constitution’s silence about God.
   
   Background
   Born in Connecticut, educated at Yale (class of 1767).
   Served as pastor in Hartford, Connecticut.
   A respected New England preacher during and after the American Revolution.
   
   On the Constitution
   In his sermons of the late 1780s–90s, Strong lamented that the U.S. Constitution made no reference to God, Christ, or the Bible.
   He warned that this omission was not neutrality but covenant-breaking.
   One of his famous complaints:
   “To neglect the Most High in our national compact, to leave Him unacknowledged in the very bond of our Union, is to forget the source of all authority and protection.”
   For Strong, the Constitution represented a shift from a covenantal, God-centered society (like the Mayflower Compact or colonial charters) to an Enlightenment experiment that tried to build government on human reason alone.
   
   Theological Logic
   Strong inherited the covenant theology of New England Puritanism.
   Believed that God deals with nations collectively: obedience brings blessing, neglect brings judgment.
   Thus, a “godless Constitution” endangered the republic’s future.
   
   Influence & Legacy
   While not as prominent nationally as Timothy Dwight, Strong’s voice carried weight in New England pulpits.
   He is often cited alongside Dwight, John Mason (Presbyterian), and Nathaniel Emmons (Congregationalist) as part of the early chorus that labeled the Constitution a “godless document.”
   These critiques later inspired the National Reform Association (founded 1864), which tried to amend the Constitution to explicitly acknowledge Christ’s authority.
   
   Summary: Joseph Strong was a New England Congregationalist who condemned the Constitution for omitting God, arguing that America’s political compact was spiritually defective. Like Dwight and Mason, he believed the nation must covenant openly with God or face His judgment.
   ↩︎
7. Ezra Stiles (1727–1795) is another fascinating transitional figure. He was President of Yale College (1778–1795), and although more moderate than Timothy Dwight (his successor), he still carried the Puritan covenantal suspicion of a government that omitted God.
   
   Background
   Born in Connecticut, educated at Yale (1746).
   Ordained as a Congregationalist minister.
   A polymath: pastor, scientist, Hebrew scholar, diarist.
   Became president of Yale during the Revolutionary War, guiding the college through crisis.
   
   On the U.S. Constitution
   Stiles didn’t oppose the Constitution outright, but like Joseph Strong and John Mason he worried about the absence of God in the document.
   In his 1783 Election Sermon before the Connecticut General Assembly (anticipating independence and new government), he said:
   “A people may flourish in their councils and arms, but unless the favor of Heaven be secured by public acknowledgment, their fabric is founded on the sand.”
   He implied that a republic that failed to acknowledge God risked instability and collapse.
   
   Theological Logic
   Stiles was steeped in covenant theology: he believed nations, like Israel, must covenant with God.
   He was less fiery than Dwight, but he echoed the same fear that without explicit recognition of God, the new American nation would lack divine blessing.
   
   Other Views
   Interestingly, Stiles admired aspects of the American Enlightenment. He read widely, corresponded with scientists, and even speculated about religious liberty.
   This made him more moderate than Dwight, but he still leaned heavily on the Puritan instinct that a truly stable nation must be God-centered.
   
   Legacy
   Stiles passed the baton to Timothy Dwight at Yale in 1795. Dwight would become the more famous critic of the “godless Constitution.”
   But Stiles’ sermons stand as an early expression of the same concern: a fear that America’s republican experiment would fail without explicit religious foundations.
   
   Summary: Ezra Stiles, though more moderate than Dwight, worried that the Constitution’s silence about God meant America was “building on sand.” His 1783 Election Sermon shows the continuity of Puritan covenant theology shaping early American suspicion of secular government.
   ↩︎
8. Nathaniel Emmons (1745–1840) was a Congregationalist minister in Franklin, Massachusetts, and one of the sharpest New England voices warning against the U.S. Constitution’s silence about God. He belonged to the “New Divinity” school of theology (a branch of Jonathan Edwards’ legacy) and was well known as a preacher and controversialist.
   
   Background
   Graduate of Yale (1767).
   Pastor of the Congregational church in Franklin, MA, for over 50 years.
   Prolific sermon writer; published volumes of theological and political sermons.
   Part of the Edwardsian Calvinist tradition, deeply covenantal in his thinking.
   
   On the Constitution
   Emmons joined Dwight, Strong, Mason, and Stiles in condemning the Constitution for being “godless.”
   His complaint was theological: a civil compact that failed to acknowledge God was not neutral but rebellious.
   One of his oft-quoted lines (paraphrased from his sermons):
   “A Constitution that makes no mention of the true God is an anomaly among Christian nations, and cannot long prosper. Our fathers covenanted with Him; shall we, their children, renounce His name?”
   Like others in his generation, Emmons believed leaving God out of the nation’s foundational document would bring judgment, because God deals with nations as He once dealt with Israel.
   
   Theological Logic
   Rooted in covenant theology: a nation prospers when it acknowledges God, declines when it forgets Him.
   Saw the omission of God as a dangerous step toward infidelity, akin to the French Revolution’s irreligion (which many New England preachers dreaded).
   
   Legacy
   Emmons became a leading theological influence in Massachusetts; dozens of ministers trained under him.
   His critiques of the Constitution helped shape the long tradition of calling it a “godless document,” which resurfaced later in the 19th century with the National Reform Association’s push for a Christian amendment.
   Today he’s remembered as one of the most forceful Congregationalist critics of the Constitution’s religious neutrality.
   
   Summary: Nathaniel Emmons was a powerful Congregationalist preacher who attacked the U.S. Constitution as “godless,” insisting that only an explicitly Christian national covenant could secure divine blessing. He stood alongside Dwight, Mason, Strong, and Stiles as part of a multi-denominational chorus of late 18th-century ministers warning against America’s secular founding.
   ↩︎
9. Obadiah Holmes (1607–1682) is one of the classic stories of early Baptist persecution in America. His case shows just how far Puritan Massachusetts would go to enforce religious uniformity.
   
   Background
   Holmes was born in England, emigrated to New England in 1638, and eventually became associated with the Baptists in Rhode Island.
   Massachusetts Bay was strictly Puritan and demanded religious conformity. Baptists were considered dangerous separatists, since they rejected infant baptism and the state-church system.
   
   The Famous Incident (1651)
   Holmes, along with John Clarke and John Crandall (fellow Baptists), visited an elderly man named William Witter in Lynn, Massachusetts, to hold a Baptist worship service in his home.
   They were arrested and hauled before the General Court in Boston for the crime of holding an unauthorized religious meeting.
   The charges: rejecting infant baptism and conducting worship without Puritan approval.
   Clarke and Crandall were fined and released.
   Holmes refused to pay his fine because he did not want to “tempt others to sin by doing so.”
   
   The Punishment
   In September 1651, Obadiah Holmes was publicly whipped with 30 lashes in Boston Common.
   Contemporary accounts describe it as brutal: his back was so lacerated that he could only rest on his elbows and knees for weeks afterward.
   Holmes reportedly said while being beaten:
   “You have struck me as with roses.”
   This remark became legendary among Baptists, symbolizing courage under persecution.
   
   Legacy
   Holmes later became pastor of the First Baptist Church in Newport, Rhode Island (1652–82).
   His suffering helped solidify Baptist identity as a persecuted minority and fueled the argument for religious liberty.
   His descendants included President Abraham Lincoln (Holmes was one of Lincoln’s ancestors).
   
   Why he matters
   Holmes’ whipping is one of the most vivid examples of religious persecution in early America.
   It shows that the Puritans, though fleeing persecution themselves, imposed their own form of Christendom and denied liberty to dissenters.
   Baptists later pointed to Holmes as proof that only strict separation of church and state could guarantee true religious freedom.
   ↩︎
10. The Know-Nothing Movement (officially the American Party) was one of the strangest and most combustible episodes of 19th-century U.S. politics. It was a nativist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Catholic movement that briefly caught fire in the 1850s.
    
    Origins
    Started as a secret society in the 1840s, originally called the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner.
    Membership was mostly native-born, white, Protestant men who felt threatened by the massive wave of Irish and German Catholic immigration.
    When asked about their activities, members were told to say, “I know nothing” — hence the nickname.
    
    Core Beliefs
    Anti-Catholicism
    They feared Catholic immigrants were loyal to the Pope, not to American democracy.
    Claimed Catholicism was incompatible with republican liberty.
    Conspiracy theories flourished: priests and nuns supposedly plotting to subvert America.
    Nativism
    Sought to restrict immigration and naturalization.
    Wanted to lengthen the time it took immigrants to become citizens and vote.
    Protestant Identity
    They cast America as a Protestant “Christian nation” that must be protected from foreign (Catholic) influence.
    
    Political Peak (1850s)
    The movement grew rapidly as immigration surged (especially famine-driven Irish Catholics in the 1840s).
    By the mid-1850s, the Know-Nothings won major elections:
    Took control of several state legislatures.
    Elected dozens to Congress.
    Ran ex-President Millard Fillmore as their presidential candidate in 1856 (he got about 21% of the vote).
    
    Decline
    The slavery crisis eclipsed everything. The Know-Nothing platform couldn’t compete with the rising Republican Party, which focused squarely on stopping slavery’s expansion.
    Internal divisions (North vs. South, pro- vs. anti-slavery) tore the movement apart by the late 1850s.
    By 1860, the party was essentially dead.
    
    Violence & Legacy
    Know-Nothing mobs attacked Catholic churches, convents, and immigrant neighborhoods (e.g., the Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1844, Louisville’s “Bloody Monday” riots in 1855).
    Their rhetoric left a long shadow: nativist suspicion of immigrants and Catholics would resurface repeatedly in U.S. history.
    
    In short: The Know-Nothing Movement was an explicitly Protestant Christian nationalist wave — one of the earliest in America — that tried to define the nation against Catholic immigrants. It fizzled politically, but its ideas didn’t die; they reemerged in later nativist and nationalist movements.
    ↩︎
11. Francis Bellamy is a figure deeply intertwined with American patriotism and civic rituals, primarily known for authoring one of the nation's most enduring pledges.
    Here's a breakdown of who Francis Bellamy was:
    Who Was Francis Bellamy?
    Dates: Born May 18, 1855; died August 28, 1931.
    Background: An American socialist minister, a Christian minister (Baptist), and an author.
    Key Role: He is best known as the author of the original Pledge of Allegiance.
    The Pledge of Allegiance:
    Origin: Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 for The Youth's Companion magazine.
    Purpose: It was designed to be recited by schoolchildren to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The magazine, in collaboration with the National Education Association, heavily promoted the idea of patriotism and civic education, especially among the youth.
    Original Wording (1892): "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
    Changes Over Time:
    1923: The words "the Flag of the United States of America" were added, replacing "my Flag," to clarify which flag was being referenced, especially for immigrant children.
    1954: In response to the Cold War and the threat of communism, Congress added the words "under God" after "one nation," a change that has been a source of debate regarding the separation of church and state ever since.
    Bellamy's Intent and Ideals:
    Socialist and Christian Socialist Views: Bellamy was a Christian Socialist. His intention with the Pledge was not just simple patriotism but also an expression of his social ideals. He believed in a more egalitarian society and saw the Pledge as a way to unite diverse Americans around common civic values, loyalty to the republic, and the promise of "liberty and justice for all."
    "Bellamy Salute": Initially, there was a specific salute that accompanied the Pledge, known as the "Bellamy Salute," where the right hand was extended toward the flag. However, due to its unsettling resemblance to the Nazi salute that emerged in the 1930s, it was replaced by placing the right hand over the heart in 1942.
    Later Life:
    Bellamy left the ministry in 1891 due to theological disagreements and went into advertising, eventually becoming an advertising executive.
    Despite his later career, his legacy remains tied to the Pledge of Allegiance, a foundational text in American civic life.
    Significance:
    Francis Bellamy's contribution to American culture is immense. The Pledge of Allegiance became a ubiquitous part of public schooling and national ceremonies, playing a significant role in shaping American identity, promoting civic loyalty, and fostering a sense of national unity, particularly in times of war and crisis. While the Pledge has undergone changes and faced debates, its core message, born from Bellamy's pen, continues to resonate in the fabric of American society. ↩︎
12. The Knights of Columbus are a Catholic fraternal order that played a surprisingly big role in America’s civic religion—especially in getting “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance.
    
    Origins
    Founded in 1882 in New Haven, Connecticut, by Father Michael McGivney (a young parish priest).
    Purpose: to provide Catholic men with mutual aid, insurance, and a supportive brotherhood, since many immigrant Catholic families were excluded from Protestant societies.
    Name: chosen to honor Christopher Columbus as a symbol of Catholic contribution to American history.
    
    Character
    Structured like a lodge/fraternity, with rituals, ranks (called “degrees”), and a strong emphasis on charity.
    Deeply patriotic from the beginning, especially to counter accusations that Catholics were disloyal to the U.S.
    
    Major Contributions
    Social services & insurance
    By the 20th century, they became one of the largest Catholic charitable organizations in America, providing hospitals, schools, orphanages, and insurance programs.
    Defense of Catholic rights
    In the early 1900s, they opposed anti-Catholic prejudice and promoted Catholic history in America.
    Sponsored historical publications (e.g., “Knights of Columbus Racial Contribution Series”) to argue for Catholic patriotism and immigrant contributions.
    “Under God” campaign
    Beginning in 1951, local councils of the Knights started inserting “under God” when they recited the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings.
    They then formally petitioned Congress to adopt the change nationwide.
    Their campaign gained momentum when President Eisenhower attended a 1954 sermon by Rev. George Docherty, who repeated the argument. Shortly after, Congress amended the Pledge.
    Thus, the Knights of Columbus were directly responsible for planting the seed that led to the official phrase “one nation, under God.”
    
    Today
    Over 2 million members worldwide.
    Still a powerful Catholic fraternal and charitable organization.
    Visible through parish councils, insurance programs, and local charity drives.
    Known for large-scale charitable giving, disaster relief, and support for pro-life and religious liberty causes.
    
    In short: The Knights of Columbus began as a Catholic immigrant brotherhood, became a major charitable society, and left a permanent mark on American civic religion by pushing “under God” into the Pledge. ↩︎
13. The Christian Nationalist Crusade was the brainchild of Gerald L. K. Smith (1898–1976), one of the most notorious American far-right agitators of the 20th century. It’s an important early use of the label Christian nationalist in American politics.
    
    Origins
    Founded in 1942, during World War II.
    Smith had been a preacher in the Disciples of Christ, then a populist organizer with Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth movement.
    After Long’s assassination (1935), Smith drifted further right, mixing nationalism, conspiracy theories, and militant Protestant rhetoric.
    
    Core Themes
    Anti-Semitism
    Claimed Jews secretly controlled banking, media, and government.
    Pushed conspiracy tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
    Anti-Catholicism and Nativism
    Defended “Anglo-Saxon Protestant America.”
    Opposed immigration and ecumenism.
    Christian Identity Politics
    Cast the U.S. as a nation explicitly under God and threatened by secularism and communism.
    Used Protestant language and patriotic imagery to fuse religion with ultra-nationalist politics.
    Populist Authoritarianism
    Advocated a strongman politics styled on fascist movements in Europe.
    Praised elements of Mussolini and Hitler’s regimes before WWII.
    
    Activities
    Published newsletters, pamphlets, and held rallies under the “Christian Nationalist Crusade” banner.
    Organized political campaigns — Smith ran for president several times on fringe tickets.
    Spread propaganda through his group’s newspaper The Cross and the Flag.
    
    Decline
    After WWII, Smith’s virulent anti-Semitism and extremism marginalized him.
    The Christian Nationalist Crusade never became a mass movement, but it left a trail of propaganda and influenced later far-right and white nationalist groups.
    In his later years, Smith poured energy into Arkansas tourist attractions: the Christ of the Ozarks statue and the long-running Great Passion Play. Ironically, these became far more popular than his political movement.
    
    Significance
    The Christian Nationalist Crusade is one of the first explicit uses of the term “Christian nationalist” in U.S. politics.
    It shows how the phrase originally had strong associations with extremism, exclusion, and authoritarianism.
    This darker heritage is one reason many critics today treat “Christian nationalism” as a dangerous label, even as some conservatives try to reclaim it.
    ↩︎
14. John Winthrop was a pivotal figure in early American history, serving as a long-time governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and articulating a vision that profoundly shaped American identity and values.
    Here's a breakdown of who he was and his significance:
    Who Was John Winthrop?
    Dates: Born January 12, 1587/88 (Old Style/New Style) in Edwardstone, Suffolk, England; died March 26, 1649, in Boston, Massachusetts Bay Colony.
    Background: He was a prosperous lawyer, landowner, and Puritan gentleman in England. He was deeply devout and grew increasingly concerned about the moral decline and religious persecution he perceived in England under King Charles I and Archbishop William Laud.
    Leader of the Great Migration: Winthrop became a key leader and the elected governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company. In 1630, he led a fleet of eleven ships carrying over 700 Puritan colonists from England to the Massachusetts Bay area, an event known as the "Great Migration." This was a much larger and more organized undertaking than the Pilgrims' journey to Plymouth ten years earlier.
    Governor of Massachusetts Bay: He served multiple terms as governor, totaling twelve terms over two decades, between 1629 and 1649. His leadership was crucial in the colony's survival and establishment.
    Key Contributions and Significance:
    "A Model of Christian Charity" (The "City Upon a Hill" Sermon):
    Delivered aboard the ship Arbella in 1630, this sermon is arguably his most famous legacy.
    In it, Winthrop laid out the spiritual and social ideals for the new colony. He famously declared: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."
    This meant that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was to be a shining example to the world, a model Christian commonwealth where God's laws were upheld, and Christian love and charity prevailed. Failure, he warned, would bring God's wrath and shame.
    This concept has resonated throughout American history, shaping the idea of American exceptionalism and its perceived moral mission.
    Shaping Puritan Society:
    Under Winthrop's leadership, Massachusetts Bay developed a theocratic government where civil law was closely intertwined with religious doctrine.
    He believed in a "covenant" with God, where the community as a whole would be blessed if it adhered to God's laws and cursed if it strayed.
    He played a significant role in establishing the framework for Puritan life, including strong emphasis on education (leading to the founding of Harvard College in 1636), strict moral codes, and the close relationship between church and state.
    Limited Religious Freedom (from a modern perspective):
    Consistent with Puritan beliefs of the time, Winthrop did not advocate for religious freedom in the modern sense. He sought freedom for Puritans to practice their religion as they saw fit, but not freedom for all religions within the colony.
    He was instrumental in the banishment of dissenters like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, whom he viewed as threats to the religious and social purity of the "city upon a hill." He believed that allowing diverse religious opinions would undermine the colony's covenant with God and lead to chaos.
    Concept of Liberty:
    Winthrop articulated a distinction between two types of liberty:
    Natural Liberty: The freedom to do whatever one pleases, good or evil, which he saw as dangerous and antithetical to a godly society.
    Civil or Federal Liberty: The freedom to do only that which is "good, just, and honest," voluntarily submitted to authority (both God's and the government's) for the common good. This was the only true form of liberty in his view.
    Legacy:
    John Winthrop's vision and leadership laid the foundation for much of early New England's social, political, and religious structure. While his ideas about government and religious tolerance are very different from modern democratic principles, his articulation of the "city upon a hill" ideal has profoundly influenced the narrative of American exceptionalism and its sense of purpose on the global stage. He remains a crucial figure for understanding the origins of American identity and the complex interplay of religious idealism and pragmatic governance in the colonial era. ↩︎
15. https://minio.la.utexas.edu/webeditor-files/coretexts/pdf/163020model20of20christian20charity.pdf ↩︎
16. The National Reform Association (NRA) is a fascinating organization that emerged in the United States in the mid-19th century. Understanding them requires a bit of historical context regarding post-Civil War America and the evolving role of religion in public life.
    Here's a breakdown of what the National Reform Association is:
    What is the National Reform Association (NRA)?
    The National Reform Association is a Protestant Christian organization founded in 1864 with the primary goal of amending the U.S. Constitution to formally acknowledge God and the nation's Christian identity.
    Key Beliefs and Objectives:
    Constitutional Amendment: Their central aim was to add an amendment to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution that would recognize:
    The existence of God
    The authority of Jesus Christ
    The Bible as the supreme moral law
    The Christian nationhood of the United States. This proposed amendment was often referred to as the "Christian Amendment."
    Christian Nationhood: They firmly believed that the United States was, and should explicitly be recognized as, a Christian nation. They argued that the nation's laws and institutions should reflect Christian principles.
    Moral Reform: Beyond the Constitution, the NRA advocated for various moral reforms based on their interpretation of biblical law. These included:
    Strict observance of the Sabbath (Sunday laws, restricting business and recreation on Sundays).
    Prohibition of alcohol.
    Christian instruction in public schools.
    Opposition to divorce and other perceived moral failings.
    Opposition to Secularism: They viewed the secularization of government and public life as a threat to the nation's moral fabric and divine favor. They opposed any interpretation of the Constitution that suggested a strict separation of church and state, arguing that such a separation was unbiblical and harmful.
    Historical Context and Influence:
    Post-Civil War Era: The NRA gained momentum during and after the Civil War. Many members saw the war as divine judgment on the nation for its moral failings (including slavery, though their primary focus wasn't always on that particular issue) and believed that formally acknowledging God was necessary for national redemption and future prosperity.
    Response to Immigration: The mid-to-late 19th century saw significant immigration, particularly from Catholic countries (Ireland, Southern Europe) and Jewish communities. The NRA's push for explicit Protestant Christian nationhood can be seen, in part, as a reaction to these demographic changes and an attempt to solidify a particular vision of American identity.
    Influence on Social Movements: While they never achieved their goal of a "Christian Amendment," the NRA was influential in various social reform movements. They contributed significantly to the push for temperance (which eventually led to Prohibition) and Sabbath laws. They also shaped public discourse around the role of religion in schools and public life.
    Decline and Modern Legacy: The NRA's direct political influence waned in the 20th century. However, their arguments and goals laid groundwork for later movements that advocate for similar principles, particularly aspects of the modern Christian Right and Christian Reconstructionism, which also seek to explicitly establish Christian principles in law and government.
    In essence:
    The National Reform Association was a significant 19th-century movement that sought to officially define the United States as a Christian nation through constitutional amendment and to ensure that public policy reflected conservative Protestant moral values. Their efforts highlight an ongoing tension in American history regarding the relationship between religion, government, and national identity. ↩︎
17. Christendom is one of those big, slippery words that can mean anything from “Europe when the Pope had clout” to “the cultural wallpaper of the West.” At its core, it names the fusion of church and state into one social body, where Christianity was not just a religion but the organizing principle of law, politics, and culture.
    1. Origins
    Constantine (early 4th century): The pivot point. Before him, Christianity was a persecuted minority faith. With him, Christianity gained toleration, and soon after, imperial patronage. Theodosius I (late 4th century) made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire.
    What was born was not simply “the church” nor simply “the empire,” but a hybrid—Rome with a baptized conscience. The bishop and the emperor shared authority in a dance called the “symphonia” (Byzantine term), where spiritual and temporal power were supposed to cooperate.
    2. The Medieval Structure
    In Western Europe, the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor tussled for primacy. Who crowns whom? Who disciplines whom? This tension defined centuries.
    Society was imagined as a unified Christian body. Law was canon law plus royal decrees. Heresy was not just a religious error but a civil crime. To be born in Europe was to be baptized; to be outside was to be alien.
    Christendom wasn’t just about politics. It also meant the rhythms of the year (holy days), the imagination (cathedrals, mystery plays), and knowledge (universities began as church institutions).
    3. Cracks in the system
    By the late Middle Ages, nation-states rose, papal authority waned, and reform movements stirred.
    The Reformation (16th century) didn’t abolish Christendom—it fractured it. Instead of one “corpus Christianum,” you got Lutheran lands, Calvinist lands, Anglican England, Catholic Spain and France. Each was still a church-state union, just under different confessions.
    Religious dissenters (Anabaptists, Baptists, Quakers) were the real radicals: they rejected the whole Christendom model. For them, the church was voluntary, spiritual, and separate from the sword.
    4. Decline
    The Enlightenment and revolutions of the 17th–19th centuries began unraveling Christendom. “Secular” became a possibility. Citizenship replaced baptism as the mark of belonging.
    By the 20th century, the term Christendom mostly evoked nostalgia or critique. World Wars, secular constitutions, and pluralism all undercut the idea of one Christian society.
    5. Legacy
    Positive: Christendom preserved learning, built cathedrals, inspired art, and gave cohesion to Europe for a millennium.
    Negative: it baptized coercion, stifled dissent, and blurred the line between gospel and law.
    Echoes: Even today, when people say “the West is a Christian civilization” or when political movements invoke “Christian heritage,” they’re channeling Christendom’s ghost.
    Old School Baptists (and other radical dissenters) are heirs of the anti-Christendom critique. They insisted Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, so attempts to fuse church and state only corrupt both.
    Here’s a fun way to think of it: Christendom was like a medieval cathedral—magnificent, comprehensive, casting long shadows—but also filled with scaffolding and cracks. When it finally crumbled, some tried to restore it, others fled the ruins, and still others asked if it should have been built that way in the first place. ↩︎
18. Puritan covenant theology is one of those odd hybrids: part Calvinist metaphysics, part political contract theory, part biblical typology. It gave the Puritans their organizing worldview, and it still echoes today in both theology and politics. Let me lay out its bones and then put some flesh on them.
    1. The theological backbonePuritans were heirs of Reformed (Calvinist) theology, which had already systematized “covenant theology.” They emphasized three great covenants:
    Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis): Before time, the Father covenanted with the Son to redeem a chosen people.
    Covenant of Works: In Eden, Adam was promised life for obedience; his fall broke this.
    Covenant of Grace: After the fall, God covenanted to save the elect by grace through Christ, received by faith.
    This gave history a grand architecture: the world was a drama of covenants.
    2. How the Puritans applied itWhen Puritans crossed the Atlantic, they didn’t leave this neat system in the ivory tower. They politicized it. Communities were bound not just by town charters, but by spiritual covenants. For example:
    Church covenants: Congregational churches required members to enter into covenant with one another, promising mutual accountability and holiness.
    Civil covenants: Colonies like Massachusetts Bay framed themselves as covenant communities, accountable to God. John Winthrop’s famous “city upon a hill” sermon (1630) was covenantal language: “If we deal falsely with our God… we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.”
    3. Covenant as conditionalHere’s the crucial twist: these covenants were often seen as conditional. Blessing depended on obedience. If the people kept covenant, God would prosper them; if they broke it, he would punish. This made public morality, political order, and even prosperity into signs of divine favor. It explains why Puritans were so zealous about enforcing discipline—not just in churches, but in civil law.
    4. The psychological effectImagine living in a society where droughts, plagues, Indian wars, or economic slumps were interpreted as divine rebukes for covenant-breaking. That kept covenant consciousness alive, but it also bred fear, introspection, and constant searching for signs of grace. Jonathan Edwards (though later than the Puritan heyday) stood squarely in this covenantal framework when preaching “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
    5. Long-term legacyPuritan covenant theology left a double imprint:
    Religious: Congregationalism (and later many Baptists) inherited the idea of church membership as covenant-based. Even today, many churches speak of “church covenants.”
    Political: The notion that society is bound together by a covenant under God helped birth American exceptionalism. The U.S. as a “nation under God” is straight out of Puritan covenant thinking, even if the theology has been thinned down.
    So in short, covenant theology gave Puritans a cosmic grammar for reading Scripture and a civic blueprint for building colonies. It fused theology, politics, and daily life in a way that made their experiment a mixture of utopia and crucible.
    Now, where this gets interesting for your line of study: Old School Baptists sharply rejected that covenant-conditional framework, especially the idea that temporal blessings depend on obedience. They saw it as sliding into “time salvation” or progressive sanctification. ↩︎
19. Gerald Lyman Kenneth Smith (1898–1976) is one of those figures who shows how “Christian Nationalism” in the U.S. first took on an explicit, organized political form, though in a dark and fringe way.
    Early life
    Born in Pardeeville, Wisconsin, raised in a working-class family, educated at Beloit College.
    Originally ordained as a Disciple of Christ minister. His early preaching carried populist themes, which set the stage for his political career.
    Rise in politics
    Smith became a fiery ally of Huey Long, the populist governor and senator from Louisiana, in the 1930s.
    After Long’s assassination (1935), Smith tried to carry on his Share Our Wealth program but quickly veered into more radical, authoritarian rhetoric.
    Christian Nationalist Crusade
    In the 1940s, Smith founded the Christian Nationalist Crusade (1942), which openly blended Protestant religious rhetoric with ultra-nationalism and anti-Semitism.
    He also ran the Christian Nationalist Party, though it never gained meaningful electoral traction.
    His publications and speeches insisted that America was fundamentally a Christian nation under threat from communists, Jews, and modernists.
    Ideological character
    Fiercely isolationist, pro-fascist sympathies during WWII (admiring Mussolini and flirting with Nazi rhetoric).
    Promoted conspiracy theories about Jewish control of banking and government.
    His “Christian nationalism” wasn’t mainstream piety—it was a radical, exclusionary ideology that married racial nativism with religious identity.
    Later years
    After WWII, Smith’s influence waned, but he kept publishing tracts, newsletters, and ran for president several times on fringe tickets.
    In Arkansas, he built the Christ of the Ozarks statue and founded the Great Passion Play production, a massive outdoor drama that still runs today. Ironically, this tourist site is far more famous than his political career.
    Legacy
    Historians mark him as one of the first major American figures to use and popularize the term Christian Nationalist explicitly.
    But his “brand” of Christian nationalism was entangled with anti-Semitism and proto-fascism—very different from later evangelical versions.
    He’s a reminder that “Christian Nationalism” in U.S. history has had multiple faces: cultural majority identity, political theology, and, in Smith’s case, extremist ideology.
    He’s like a fossil of mid-20th-century radicalism: mostly forgotten today, but a critical data point if you’re mapping the genealogy of “Christian nationalism.” ↩︎
20. The Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) case is the big moment where the U.S. Supreme Court stamped the phrase “this is a Christian nation” into American legal memory.
    Here’s the story:
    1. The Case
    Officially: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
    The Church of the Holy Trinity in New York City had hired an English clergyman, Rev. E. Walpole Warren, to come serve as their rector.
    Problem: There was a federal law (the 1885 “Alien Contract Labor Law”) forbidding companies from contracting foreign laborers to come work in the U.S. The idea was to protect American jobs.
    The government argued: this law applied to the church’s contract with Rev. Warren.
    2. The Court’s Ruling
    Justice David Josiah Brewer wrote the opinion.
    Technically, the Court decided that the law wasn’t intended to apply to ministers of the gospel—so the church was not guilty.
    But Brewer went much further than necessary. He launched into a sweeping statement about America’s national identity.
    3. The Famous LineBrewer wrote:
    “These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
    He based this on:
    State constitutions invoking God.
    Laws protecting Sunday as a day of rest.
    Charitable institutions founded by churches.
    The widespread use of the Bible in schools and public life.
    4. Brewer’s Later Clarification
    In 1905, Brewer published a book titled The United States: A Christian Nation.
    Importantly, he clarified that he didn’t mean legally established Christianity, but culturally: “We are a Christian people… not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion… but in the sense that it has shaped our civilization.”
    5. Legacy
    This phrase became a proof-text for countless sermons, pamphlets, and political arguments claiming America’s divine foundation.
    It’s still quoted today by advocates of “Christian nation” rhetoric.
    Critics point out: Brewer’s statement was dicta (not necessary to the ruling), more cultural commentary than constitutional law.
    In short:Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892) didn’t establish Christianity in law, but it canonized the idea of America as a Christian nation into Supreme Court rhetoric. It was the high-water mark of Christian-national language in U.S. jurisprudence. ↩︎
21. https://ia802801.us.archive.org/19/items/unitedstateschri00brew/unitedstateschri00brew.pdf ↩︎
22. McGowan v. Maryland (366 U.S. 420, 1961) is one of the landmark “Sunday closing laws” cases, where the Court had to decide whether “blue laws” (laws requiring businesses to close on Sunday) violated the Establishment Clause by enforcing a Christian Sabbath.
    
    Background
    Maryland had laws that prohibited most commercial activity on Sundays.
    Department store employees (McGowan and others) were fined for selling items on Sunday and challenged the law.
    Their argument: these laws enforced Christian observance, violating the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion.
    
    The Court’s Decision
    Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
    Ruling (8–1): The laws were upheld as constitutional.
    
    Key Reasoning
    Historical origin: Yes, the laws originally had religious motivations (rooted in Sabbath observance).
    Contemporary purpose: But by the 20th century, their purpose had become secular:
    Providing a uniform day of rest and recreation for citizens.
    Promoting health, welfare, and general community well-being.
    Therefore, their constitutionality did not depend on their religious origins but on their present-day secular justification.
    Warren wrote:
    “The present purpose and effect of most of them is to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens; the fact that this day is Sunday, a day of particular significance for the dominant Christian sects, does not bar the State from achieving its secular goals.”
    
    Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
    Justice Frankfurter (concurring): Emphasized deference to state legislatures in balancing religion and public life.
    Justice Douglas (dissenting): Strongly disagreed, arguing that these laws were still religious at their core, and that the government had no business enforcing any religious observance.
    
    Significance
    The case represents the Supreme Court’s pivot away from Brewer’s 1892 “Christian nation” dicta.
    Instead of affirming religious heritage, the Court reframed laws with Christian roots in secular terms.
    It set a precedent for how courts would often salvage old laws with religious origins by interpreting their modern purpose as neutral or civic.
    
    So, where Brewer in 1892 said “this is a Christian nation,” Warren in 1961 said (in effect), “Yes, these laws look Christian, but we can justify them as secular.” ↩︎
23. Benjamin Franklin is fascinating on this point because he lived right at the crossroads: a man who respected religion, even liked it when it encouraged morality, but was deeply allergic to any official entanglement of church and state. He was pragmatic, deistic in philosophy, and more interested in utility than doctrine.
    1. Franklin the “practical deist”
    Franklin described himself as a deist in his youth, skeptical of dogma and miracles.
    Over time, he softened toward Christianity—not because he became orthodox, but because he saw its social usefulness. In his Autobiography, he praised Jesus’ moral teachings but dodged questions of divinity.
    2. On church establishment
    Franklin grew up in Boston amid Puritan dominance, where church and state were tightly bound. He rebelled against that atmosphere.
    In Philadelphia, he resisted efforts to give one denomination state preference. Instead, he worked for religious pluralism.
    He helped fund churches of various denominations (even built a meeting house that he said “any preacher of any persuasion” could use).
    3. Famous anecdote at the Constitutional Convention (1787)
    When the Convention was struggling, Franklin suggested that they begin sessions with prayer.
    But here’s the irony: the motion quietly died, partly because delegates didn’t want to appear dependent on clergy.
    Franklin himself later admitted he wasn’t very consistent in prayer, but he saw value in a shared religious gesture.
    4. Franklin on church/state separation
    In his letters, Franklin made it clear that he wanted no religious tests for officeholders. He liked that the Constitution left God unmentioned.
    He even remarked that he didn’t think theological uniformity was possible or desirable in government.
    At the same time, he was fine with religion’s moral influence on society—as long as it was voluntary and broad.
    5. Deathbed confession?
    A friend asked Franklin whether he accepted Jesus as divine. Franklin replied:
    “I have… some doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now… I shall soon know the truth.”
    That sums him up: pragmatic, respectful, but doctrinally noncommittal.
    
    In short: Franklin thought churches should be free, plural, and useful—but never privileged by the state. He liked Christianity as a moral compass but rejected it as a governmental foundation. In today’s language, he was a proponent of church–state separation with a civic appreciation for religion. ↩︎
24. That’s George Washington’s famous 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island — one of the most important early American statements on religious liberty.
    
    Background
    August 1790: Washington visited Newport, then home to one of the oldest Jewish communities in America (the Touro Synagogue, established 1763).
    The congregation’s leader, Moses Seixas, wrote a letter welcoming him, praising the new Constitution for rejecting religious tests and granting liberty of conscience.
    Washington replied with a letter that has become a landmark text for American views on religious freedom.
    
    Key Passages
    Washington echoed Seixas and went further:
    Against mere toleration
    “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For, happily, the Government of the United States … gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”
    This is crucial: he wasn’t saying Jews were tolerated (like second-class citizens allowed to exist); he said they had full, natural rights.
    Promise of equal liberty
    “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”
    Blessing
    “May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
    (The “vine and fig tree” phrase is a biblical allusion Washington often used for peace and security.)
    
    Why it matters
    It’s one of the earliest and clearest affirmations that the U.S. is not a Christian nation in the legal sense, but a pluralist republic where people of all faiths (or none) enjoy equal citizenship.
    It directly echoes the Constitution’s Article VI (no religious test for office).
    It became a touchstone for American Jews and for all advocates of religious freedom.
    
    Summary: Washington’s 1790 Newport letter makes plain: the U.S. government does not merely “tolerate” religious minorities — it rejects bigotry altogether, guaranteeing equal rights of conscience. It’s one of the strongest early rebukes to the idea of America as an officially Christian nation. ↩︎
25. Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488, 1961) is the Supreme Court case that nailed down, once and for all, that states cannot require a belief in God as a qualification for public office.
    
    Background
    Roy Torcaso was appointed as a notary public in Maryland.
    The Maryland Constitution required all public officeholders to declare belief in the existence of God.
    Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make the declaration and was denied his commission.
    He challenged the requirement, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution.
    
    The Court’s Ruling
    Unanimous (9–0) decision, delivered by Justice Hugo Black.
    The Court struck down Maryland’s religious test.
    
    Key Reasoning
    The requirement violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Justice Black wrote:
    “Neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’”
    The Court reaffirmed Article VI of the Constitution (no religious tests for federal office) and extended the principle: states also cannot impose tests of belief.
    
    Famous Footnote 11
    Black listed various non-theistic religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism) to emphasize that belief in God is not the sole measure of religion.
    This footnote has since been widely cited in debates about secular humanism and its recognition in law.
    
    Significance
    End of state religious tests – After Torcaso, no state could enforce God-belief clauses still lingering in their constitutions.
    Strong affirmation of religious neutrality – The Court cemented the idea that government must be neutral not just between Christian sects, but between belief and unbelief.
    Cultural ripple – For the first time, atheists had clear constitutional protection to serve in public office.
    
    In short: Torcaso v. Watkins extended the federal ban on religious tests to the states, making explicit that atheism (and non-theistic religions) are constitutionally protected under America’s framework of religious liberty. ↩︎