Rising Christian nationalism: a threat to us all

[IwantToRetire]

Article by Humanist UK, so doesn't really reflect on the impact on women although does mention abortion rights.

But I do think that our politics are far more influenced by the US, not for any deep reasons, but so much of our TV is now americanised.

And some of the fundamentalist UD christian groups have very regressive attitude towards women.

https://humanists.uk/2025/09/17/rising-christian-nationalism-a-threat-to-us-all/

I've heard that description before.
I'm not a theologian but... All the Abrahamic religions include a man (Abraham) being asked by God to sacrifice his eldest son. His willingness to do so proved his total obedience and therefore his goodness. That God then stopped him at the last moment is meant to show God's love and mercy. that's the main thrust of the story anyway and it's shared by all 3.

Plus all the 3 Abrahamic religions and actually most faiths include a version of the golden rule "do unto others as you would be done by". Even Confucianism which isn't a religion at all. And Humanism. (Of course, all religions have also had scholars/theologians able to find loopholes and justifications for mass slaughter of others. And the humanists have been pretty dogmatic about certain issues. Almost... religious)

So I don't know, my value system is important to me and it comes from my upbringing in a Christian country but also from my parents and the people around me (not all of whom were Christians). And I've met people with different upbringings and religions who have had the same common values. I think some things are universal to human beings. That's not to downplay that there are some things unique to Christianity.

While humans have a lot in common and so will have some significant commonalities in terms or religion and ethics, I really don't think that I would agree that all religions are about as "nice" (to use a facile word) as Christianity. I wouldn't think of Judaism nor Islam as the best comparators to see if that's so, either, since they are historically very closely related, to the point that they weren't always even differentiated.

Many religions saw honour as more important than love, or power. Many practised human sacrifice. Almost all condoned slavery. Many saw women and children as chattel. A great many saw killing/torturing/enslaving outsiders as just fine or even to be encouraged, sometimes in the most horrific of ways. Which mandated suicide and honour killings. Etc.

I don't mean here things that happened in opposition to the spiritual beliefs people had (or have, in some cases.) All societies of course have such things. But rather things that very much fit within their spiritual beliefs.

In any case, personally I don't think in the end, the ethical issue is really fixed by cultural Christianity.

If the whole thing about ethics is simply utilitarian, and not in some deeper sense a real and meaningful reflection of reality, who cares? Why should we do it? Why not just be out for ourselves, and why would that not satisfy us? We certainly have no grounds to complain that any one else doesn't behave the way we would like them to if it's just about advantage.

The problem here is treating the Old Testament as a 'lump' rather than a series of very different works written by different authors over at least 700 years.

There's the 'Primary History' - Genesis to Kings, nine named books, probably composed when its author/s were exposed to the habit of literacy and to Hesiod and other Greek writers during the Babylonian exile and decided to collate their own stories, heroes, genealogies, myth and religious principles into a book explaining why they are distinct. So it has one God who is in a relationship with creation generally and humans particularly from the beginning of time. Very different from the Greeks, though God develops that relationship over time.

Then there are the 'writings', multi authored, poems, proverbs, philosophical reflections, some from very early, some late ones influenced by Greek ideas, the ancient simple story of Job. massively elaborated into something new.

The prophets, some of them already active before the Babylonian exile, some who wrote later in the period, all with different vividly expressed ideas about that human relationship with the world and with God. See the contrast between (very trippy) Ezekiel's panicked disapproval of female sexuality with Hosea's (in some ways irritating) more loving understanding of infidelity in a relationship.

And the stories/novellas about people: Ruth, an historical novella set in the distant past pleading for the rights of foreign wives and children; Judith, fighting back, Tobit; a family story with a woman who has to go out to work to support her family, Daniel; tales from the Jewish experience of Babylon, with the first locked-room mystery and a courtroom drama about creepy voyeuristic men - and transcendent poetry; Esther; a young woman in the royal court in Babylon targetted in an antisemitic persecution; Jonah's adventures with that demanding but maddeningly indulgent God.

And then, at the end of the Second Temple period, Maccabees - interaction with a new empire, war and tortures and horrid things happening to elephants, and the propriety of praying for the dead.

Lots about lots, family rows, exploiting the poor is bad, as is not paying your debts, hardly anything about sex, even less about homosexuality, and nothing at all about gender. The Greeks were always changing into animals and vegetables and even changing sex. None of that in the Bible.

Worth getting an understanding of - a complicated collection of ancient writings that are still influencing people two and half thousand years after they were composed. Any claim that 'the OT says this' can probably be countered with an example of 'the OT says that'.

If you strip out belief in God and the Church, what’s left isn’t Christianity—it’s a set of cultural habits and manners that happened to grow in a Christian environment. Why not call it something else entirely, like “gnome-ism” or “British politeness tradition”? To keep calling it “Christianity” is misleading, because Christianity is defined by faith in Christ, not just by queuing or fair play.

This is where Tom Holland’s Dominion is helpful. He shows that almost everything we take for granted in Western society—ideas of equality, compassion for the weak, even the very critique of power—comes from Christianity. Even when modern people reject the faith, they’re still standing on foundations laid by the Gospel. In that sense, “cultural Christianity” is really just living off the capital of a faith once deeply believed and practiced.

But here’s the problem: without the living faith, the cultural residue cannot last. The politeness, the democracy, the sense of fairness—all of these grew from Christian soil. Once the soil is rejected, the plant withers. As Pope Benedict XVI warned, Europe cannot preserve Christian values while cutting itself off from Christ Himself.

That’s why the idea of “cultural Christianity without Christianity” collapses on its own terms. If it’s just culture, call it something else. If it’s Christianity, then it must involve worship, faith, and the Church. And if we truly value the things that made Britain—or Europe—what it is, then we can’t pretend they survive apart from their source

I'm amused that some of the people pushing not just cultural but tribal Christianity on XTwitter are already fragmenting, with a lot of Protestant disapproval of Catholics not knowing the Bible, then disapproving of Catholics knowing the Bible but not editing it, then Catholics having spats with each other about the use of the Traditional Latin Mass, Orthodox remaining above it all.

Surely not, Dean!

I'm adding the OT and Tom Holland's book to the reading list. By about 2028 I'll be better informed.

Get a Bible with notes and cross references ( the New Community Bible is quite good) and be prepared to seek out online commentary if search engines are still any help. And keep a stroppy feminist mindset close at ALL TIMES.

Oh, and do get a Catholic one that has Judith and Tobit and other stuff that was jettisoned by some in the 16th Century (partly because who wants to read about women?).

Thanks, Dean.

I liked the start of the King James - gorgeous language and thythms - but got bored with all the begatting. I might skip that bit and try again.

Yes, the islands were pagan once, but that was just scattered tribes and local gods, not a unified culture. Britain as a country only really takes shape under Christianity. Our monarchy, our laws, our calendar, even our sense of nationhood — all of it grew from a Christian framework. That’s why Britain is historically Christian, whatever practises came before.

The idea that pagan times were a golden age for women is pure romanticisation.

Yes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam originated in the Middle East, but that doesn’t make them “foreign” in Britain. Christianity didn’t just arrive here and stay separate — it took root, adapted to local life, and shaped everything from our laws and education to culture and monarchy. It became part of Britain itself, inseparable from the country’s identity for over a thousand years. To call it “foreign” is to ignore how deeply it changed the nation.

Conversion to Christianity wasn’t a trick, and people weren’t “fooled.” It was a centuries-long cultural transformation. As Tom Holland points out in Dominion (I know that I put him a lot, but honestly, his work is pretty impressive and persuasive)). Christianity introduced the radical idea that every human being — from the poorest to the most vulnerable has intrinsic value. This moral framework reshaped law, social norms, and everyday life.

Its influence lasted centuries, and you can see echoes even in modern Britain: the Beveridge Report of 1942, which laid the foundations for the post war welfare state, drew on principles rooted in Christian ethics, emphasising compassion, responsibility, and care for all members of society.

Whether you recognise, acknowledge or like it, much of what we take for granted in Britain today is built on Christian foundations.

I read the whole thing out loud a couple of years ago with the intention of stopping myself skipping, and decided that if I do it again I have permission to summarise the frequent descriptions of the original temple-tent in the desert and of Solomon's temple and of which lands were ascribed to each of the tribes, and to just says that the OT genealogies are genealogies.

But worth reading the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew where all four women named could be described as sexually transgressive.

You will find parts of the OT very dull, and parts infuriating. Some of the stories are not nice at all. Parts, however, are beautiful. In practice, everyone cherry picks and interprets, including those who claim that "the Bible is the Word of Gaaaaad" in an apparently literalist sense (American style fundamentalists). There is development of thought in the OT (and different emphases even in the NT which was written over a much shorter period). The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen very differently in Genesis and Ezekiel. The law in Leviticus often seems to see the good of the tribe as the basis of morality and ethics, whereas there are passages in the Prophets about looking after foreigners. But even Leviticus has hints of a much broader understanding.

All in all, saying "the Bible says" (the Hebrew books, or including the Greek books as well) is often misused by both believers and sceptics, by quoting a small part, such as a single sentence, to "prove" some point. Doing so is a bit like quoting Nietsche to prove that "philosophy says".

I am in no position to disagree with Tom Holland, but I do have questions.

"Christianity introduced the radical idea that every human being — from the poorest to the most vulnerable has intrinsic value. This moral framework reshaped law, social norms, and everyday life."

Aren't ethics and morals in part just an evolutionary advantage if you want to prosper as a society? Were these ideas really only introduced 2,000 years ago?

Also where does slavery fit into all of this?

Probably I just need to read his book.

The critical thing Christianity added to religious practice in these islands was literacy. Many Mediterranean cultures had it before Christianity but the north and western regions didn't, and it was transformative.

We had an anti abortion March here recently. I saw a good few people in abortion is murder tshirts. All Christians. We need to be very very worried.

Isn't "cultural christianity" a way for atheists to acknowledge the massive influence christianity has had on these isles, to acknowledge that a normal british atheist morality is often fairly similar to a normal british christian one, and to offer a hand of friendship and unity to christians? "We are not your enemy and you are not ours - god or otherwise we have so much in common?"

Isn't reaching across divides and unity exactly what is needed now?

We cannot unite everyone (not least TQ+ ideologues and muslims, they have nothing in common)... the best we can do is recognise when our big group has loads in common with another and offer a hand of friendship.

If non-extremist christians unite with cultural christians then potentially that could be a powerful pro-women's rights voice that has christianity in the name and can undermine extremist christians attempts to punish women for wanting / having sex.

But when you have secular right wing politicians essentially backing up fundie Christian ideals, you're in trouble.

Interesting. I am coming across more Orthodox people. Online that is , haven't met any in the wild yet that isn't actually Greek or Ukrainian. I've no idea what the doctrinal differences are but the music and sheer spectacle must be a big attraction. And I suppose you can escape the Catholic v Protestant bitching.

You don't have to believe in the supernatural to appreciate that there's a huge overlap between the teachings of the NT and those of (other) philosophers who've tried to come up with an ethical framework (my view is that only a psychopath or idiot would fail to see that enlightened self-interest demands an at least partly Rawlsian approach, but YMMD).

Creating a thriving society does not depend on the application of metaphysics, but of game theory.

Yes literacy. The Romans never invaded Ireland yet it became Christian and even re- evangelised Northern Britain. Surely part of the attraction was this fancy new technology? Even my pagan friends grudgingly admit we probably wouldn't know much about the Irish or Welsh mythology if the monks hadn't preserved it. The oral tradition is fascinating but it will only take you so far.

This has turned into a really interesting discussion about religion in its broadest sense, thank you all.

Thanks in particular to DeanElderberry for that overview of the OT - you must have had your Weetabix early, to be able to produce that at 07.17, it's very detailed and useful and informative

I'm afraid Barr77 is continuing the idea that the inhabitants of these islands were just scrabbling around until Christianity came and put manners on them-
Yes, the islands were pagan once, but that was just scattered tribes and local gods, not a unified culture.

This is such a dismissive attitude to Celtic culture, which was one of the great civilisations of the past. The Celts built cities, had a rich cultural life, were innovators in technology, had widespread trading links - the British Celts were linked by language and culture to that wider world.

What if Celtic society in these islands had been left to develop and flourish, with the intervention of the Romans and later Christiantiy? Impossible to say with certainty, but there is a hint of what might have happened:
In Ireland, because the Romans didn't invade, the ancient Celtic belief system developed into a very sophisticated social and legal system, which unfortunately did not survive the Romanisation of Christianity and the later British colonisation.

The idea that pagan times were a golden age for women is pure romanticisation.
Well yes you are right, Barr77 but has anybody here claimed it was 'a golden age for women? It is a fact that women had rights in Celtic society that we then lost for centuries, millennia even. Golden age? Of course not. But women in Celtic society had a greater range of roles and rights than women in contemporary societies, which, incidentally, horrified their enemies and was one of the reason for branding the Celts as barbarians - they couldn't control their womenfolk!

You could also add Simon Sebag Montefiore's 'Jersualem' to your list. Months later I'm still only up to the Ottomans.......but generally it is a portrait of more or less malign or benign rulers of every creed, nation or tribe; consecutive conquests; crucifixtions; beheadings; abominable torture of one sort or another; mothers killing sons; fathers selling off daughters into slavery; licentiousness; drunkenness; madness; ego, and indulgence....plus some pretty spectatcular and/or beautiful buildings along the way.

This is such a dismissive attitude to Celtic culture, which was one of the great civilisations of the past. The Celts built cities, had a rich cultural life, were innovators in technology, had widespread trading links - the British Celts were linked by language and culture to that wider world.

Well you have to assume that pre-Christian culture had something going for it, if the British Isles were permanently inhabited for about 10,000 years before Christianity.

The problem with this thread is that I feel I have to go away and read 'Dominium' before coming back to it.