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/

Anyone looking to try reading the Bible and feeling a bit daunted, don't forget about audiobooks. There is a really nice NT read by James Earle Jones which I particularly like, but lots of options. You can get through all the "begats" while out on a walk.

I love the poetry of the KJV, but it can be a bit daunting if you're not familiar with it.

I'm very fond of the Ronald Knox translation. It's not well known these days outside of elderly English Catholics who remember it being used in parishes in the 60s and 70s, but it manages to be modern and accessible while still quite literary. Knox had a good turn of phrase, as you'll know if you've read his detective stories.

Why not just be out for ourselves, and why would that not satisfy us?

Do you need religion for ethics to reflect reality? Emotions like empathy control how we treat others, and the nature of our species means we are more likely to survive if we are part of a society, which requires an ethical framework. Maybe religion is just the expression of that reality?

Or maybe it's not really possible to separate the two? Perhaps religion and faith are essential to human survival.

It's also worth remembering that all translators (and perhaps even more so with paraphrasers) bring their own assumptions and biases to their work. They are well aware of this, of course, but it isn't possible to avoid completely. This applies to all translations, of other works too. Muslims frown on translations of the Koran, partly for this reason, though reading with full understanding is pretty difficult even when the cultural context or lack of knowledge of a language doesn't get in the way. There are plenty of examples of severe lack of comprehension even in this little corner of Mumsnet! Reminds me of the Tower of Babel story ...

"Reminds me of the Tower of Babel story ..."

Also JD Vance and Rory Stewart arguing over how to interpret 'love thy neighbour'.

l’ve always thought (as a Christian) that there was a reason Jesus was born when and where he was. And part of that was that he could draw on and develop a couple of thousand years of religious thought. The gospels are very keen on pointing back to the Old Testament and there was a consistent refusal to ‘start again with Jesus’.

Christianity definitely didn’t invent the ideas about mercy, generosity to the poor, kindness to the stranger and love that are a running theme through the prophets. I would say that there were two strands of Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple. Rabbinical Judaism was one, Christianity was the other. Both have developed quite extensively in the two thousand years.

Sadly, like many siblings, they don’t always get on.

You’ve raised fair questions. Yes, human societies have always had codes of fairness and cooperation. But what Tom Holland argues in ‘Dominion’ is that Christianity universalised those instincts in a way that was completely new. It wasn’t just “protect your own tribe” — it was “every human life matters,” even the poor, the outsider, even the enemy.

Holland gives the example of infant exposure in Rome. A baby wasn’t considered part of the family until the father formally accepted it. If he didn’t, the child could be abandoned — often girls or disabled infants — and this was accepted as custom, not considered murder. Christianity broke from that. From its earliest teachings, exposure was condemned, because every child was seen as bearing God’s image. As Holland points out, the belief that even the weakest life has equal worth was a revolutionary moral stance in the ancient world.

On slavery — yes, Christians owned slaves for centuries, but the logic of their faith carried the seeds of abolition. Once you accept that all souls are equal before God, the institution is undermined from within. That’s why abolitionist movements like Wilberforce’s were so deeply rooted in Christian conviction.

So while morality may evolve, Christianity introduced something genuinely new into the world: the belief in the intrinsic value of every human being.

And that shift reshaped the moral landscape in ways we still take for granted today — from law and social norms to the foundations of the welfare state and modern ideas of justice.

Because of this, what we consider justice — what we consider right and wrong — is rooted in Christian principles. Unlike the Romans or other ancient civilisations, where morality was based on custom, status, or family duty, Christianity framed justice around universal human worth.

Don't kid yourself.

Christianity is not tolerant of gay marriage, gay sex or gay people even existing.

I am personally glad to see Christianity on the decline in Britain and more people being atheist instead.

Thanks for your points — and I completely agree that the Celts had a rich culture, impressive trade networks, and technological innovations.

The point I’ve been trying to make isn’t about denying their achievements, but about placing them in context: pre-Christian Britain was fragmented into multiple kingdoms, often violent and brutal, with raids and human sacrifices, famously described by Julius Caesar in De Bello Gallico — see the wicker man ritual.

And Celtic culture didn’t create the kind of unified legal, moral, and institutional framework that Christianity later introduced.

One poster mentioned St Bede above: he was the first to write a comprehensive history of the English people in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English people’ he chronicled events from the Roman period up to his own time, focusing on the spread of Christianity and its impact on society. His work, like other. monks helped create a coherent understanding of the islands’ past and laid the foundation for a shared historical framework.

Regarding women, I acknowledge that some Celtic societies gave women more influence. But it’s important not to overstate it: the idea of pagan societies as somehow a utopia for women is romanticisation. Rights for some women in certain contexts didn’t translate into a consistent system of equality or protection across the population.

So yes, Celtic society was rich and
sophisticated in many ways, but the long-term shaping of law, justice, and social norms in Britain owes far more to the frameworks established under Christianity than to pagan structures. Recognising that influence doesn’t dismiss the Celts — it just acknowledges the historical reality of how our society developed.

If you think atheism is an indicator of tolerance, 20th century history would like to have a word.

Caesar on the Gauls is hardly unbiased history. He had to justify his brutal and unprovoked invasion of a neighbour and trading partner of Rome. He was hardly going to paint them as a nation of benevolent humanitarians.

In Ireland the long established practice of law developed without the Romans and independently of Canon Law. There was no nonsense about equality, society (and everything else, land, animals, trees and all) was graded, and commoners and Kings did nor have the same rights or worth. The basic unit of value (we didn't have coins) was a female slave.

If ethics reflect reality, then ethics are a part of the order of the universe, the nature of things.

If they aren't, they are just made up stuff, meaningless. One set of ethics as "good" as another so long as it fulfils whatever function you personally would like to see. Might makes right, blessed are the meek, whatever.

If we want to talk philosophy, the nature of the universal order is metaphysics, the basis for a coherent ethics. But translated into a practice, especially one that works at the level of community over time, that's religion.

Absolutely - the Celts/Gauls had to be portrayed as savages to justify their destruction.

Barr77 - I agree that 'Celtic culture didn’t create the kind of unified legal, moral, and institutional framework that Christianity later introduced'

• it had it's own unified legal, moral and institutional framework' long before Christianity made its appearance.

The point is that there wasn't a legal and moral vacuum until Christianity came along. Left to its own devices Celtic society might have developed into a modern, egalitarian, humane and just society that did not rely on Christianity; the complexity and sophistication of the legal system that developed in Ireland supports that possibility.

And just as Julius Caesar had his 'agenda' about the Celts, so had Bede, so I wouldn't take either of them as objective sources in assessing Celtic society.

And I repeat, 'the idea of pagan societies as somehow a utopia for women is romanticisation.' is a straw....er... person
Nobody has suggested that Celtic society [I assume that's what you mean by 'pagan' in this context] was 'a utopia for women'.
But the fact remains that Celtic women had certain rights that it has taken us a long long time to regain.

I'm enjoying this discussion, and enjoying reading everybody's thoughts, Barr77 so I'm not arguing with you, I'm exchanging thoughts, but written down, disagreements can look worse than they would be in person, where it would be a friendly and enjoyable exchange of differing views
Is this a massive derail? sorry if it is, it's such a fascinating area, and there are so many well-informed posters with an array of approaches...

A lot of sophisticated, cultured, religious, literate societies developed caste systems that survive to this day. Christian Europe, not so much, and although aspects of American Jim Crow racism resemble caste attitudes, they are not enshrined in modern law. The church always provided an escape route for individuals who were poor or female or otherwise lesser. It may have deprived them of the right to reproduce as a price of that freedom, but it left a space for art and learning and science.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure, based on Brehon law, that without Christianity, Ireland would have developed on Caste based lines.

I'll admit not having read De Bello Gallico since school, but I don't take Caesar as an unbiased source either. My main memory of it is that Caesar had an odd habit of referring to himself in the third person, after the manner of Mr. T.

And obviously with non-literate cultures of the past, what we know about them comes from literate cultures, often colonial ones, that encountered them.

The modern pagan scene, neodruidism and Wicca and so forth, is chock full of stuff that sounds ancient but was invented within living memory. I don't necessarily have a problem with that if they get spiritual value out of it, almost all religious traditions are constantly innovating to some degree. What takes me to the fair is when recent inventions seep into folk consciousness and very earnest people insist that they're literal history when they provably aren't. Read Ronald Hutton and you won't go far wrong.

Thats what I'd have imagined, although tbh I've not seen anyone call themselves this in the wild, so may be missing context.

I'm third gen atheist/agnostic, but I'd still acknowledge that being raised and living in a nominally Christian society must have had some impact.

Hate to break it to you but there is a Christian resurgence in this country. As I posted above, a couple of my local (Catholic) Churches the pews are filling up. With young men. Dismiss it if you like but it is not going away.

What appears to be the first critique of slavery came from Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa in the 4th century.
'Gregory vigorously attacked slavery as an institution. In his homily, he lays out a complex philosophical argument based on the premise that masters and slaves are equal in the eyes of God. This premise was already generally accepted by Christians. Both slaves and masters were understood by Christian intellectuals to have the same human nature. Gregory, however, follows the argument farther than most of his contemporary intellectuals did. If slaves and masters are both equally human, then the practice of one human enslaving another is immoral in the eyes of God.'
“You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and you make laws opposed to God and contrary to His natural law. For you have subjected one who was made precisely to be lord of the earth, and whom the Creator intended to be a ruler, to the yoke of slavery, in resistance to and rejection of His divine precept. … How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself, to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures … ?”
It is the debates about meaning and texts that is the real legacy of Christianity for this country the continual debate that has fed into our laws.
A hymn I liked at school was 'Once to every man and nation' written an America abolitionist John Russell Lowell
'Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide
In the strife of truth with falsehood
For the good or evil'

New occasions teach new duties
Time makes ancient good uncouth
They must still and onward
Who would keep abreast of truth

Another example is the impact of Christianty on marriage in the middle ages
This article is an interesting look at cultural differences and the assumptions we make about universality.

'A growing body of research traces these psychological differences to the structure of families – what anthropologists call kin-based institutions. This work suggests that our minds calibrate and adapt to the social worlds we encounter while growing up. Until recently, most societies have been undergirded by intensive kin-based institutions built around large extended families, clans, cousin marriage, polygamy and many other kinship norms that regulate and tighten social life. These institutions persist in many parts of the world today, especially in rural areas.'
'By contrast, many European populations have been dominated by monogamous nuclear families – a pattern labeled the “European Marriage Pattern” by historians – since at least the end of the Middle Ages.'
'The structure of our family networks plays a central role in explaining global psychological diversity'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20201231-how-the-way-you-think-was-shaped-centuries-ago

Except that marrying cousins (not first cousin necessarily) and making sure people knew where their partner came from and that property did not go to strangers was pretty universal throughout Christian Europe until the Industrial revolution and continued after that among land owners. My own grandparents (probably 'peasants') were fourth cousins and had several interconnections in earlier generations. I had a Spanish friend whose mother's marriage to her uncle (her father's brother) needed to be approved by the church, but did get that approval because it kept the property in the family. Think of the British Royal family. Until recently they didn't marry out.

I think those historians didn't understand the documents they were interpreting.

Not even big landowners either. My own ancestry is full of cousin marriage of different degrees - let's just say villages in Tyrone or Donegal where there are only three surnames. Keeping the land in the family was important even if they were tenant farmers and even if the land was one of those tiny Irish farms that are one or two fields and a handful of pigs.

Ronald Hutton , Peter Berrisford Ellis and a few others. I've got Máire MacNeills massive tome , The Festival of Lughnasadh. A compendium of old pagan traditions. I think it was originally written for a PhD so it's not a rattling good yarn. Quite challenging , but comprehensive.

Yes , left to itself, Ireland may have preserved a caste system like that of India. But we'll never know.

From the 4th Lateran Council. It doesn't mean that it was universally obeyed just like adultery and abortion still happen despite rulings.

'Moreover the prohibition against marriage shall not in future go beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity and of affinity, since the prohibition cannot now generally be observed to further degrees without grave harm. The number four agrees well with the prohibition concerning bodily union about which the Apostle says, that the husband does not rule over his body, but the wife does; and the wife does not rule over her body, but the husband does; for there are four humours in the body, which is composed of the four elements. Although the prohibition of marriage is now restricted to the fourth degree, we wish the prohibition to be perpetual, notwithstanding earlier decrees on this subject issued either by others or by us. If any persons dare to marry contrary to this prohibition, they shall not be protected by length of years, since the passage of time does not diminish sin but increases it, and the longer that faults hold the unfortunate soul in bondage the graver they are.'

The Church, for example, banned cousin marriage, arranged marriage and polygamous marriage

Far from being frowned upon, my impression is that cousin marriage and arranged marriage have been positively encouraged for centuries in the upper echelons of UK society.