Islamists and “Christianists” are a minority in their respective religions and use their religion to promote a political ideology. (Revised 2/19/2023 to add new links while keeping the original broken links and title references.)
In an Andrew Sullivan article, Mr Sullivan suggests, “we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist.” Mr. Sullivan goes on to say:
Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
That’s what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn’t. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It’s time the quiet majority of believers took it back.
New reference to support above quote.
In Mr. Sullivan’s blog, he adds the following clarification (bold added for emphasis):
Some readers have objected to my attempt to coin a new word to describe those who would deploy the teachings of Jesus as a political ideology as “Christianists.” They don’t like the analogy to Islamists, and think it imputes to politicized Christians an endorsement of terror or violence. The latter is not in any way my intent. In the war on terror, many have distinguished between Muslims and Islamists. The distinction made is between those who sincerely hold to an ancient faith, and those who are deploying that faith as a political weapon, who see no distinction between state and mosque, and who aggressively foist their religious doctrines onto civil law. And this is a critical distinction. It helps us to criticize regimes like the Taliban or Iran’s, while not tarring all Muslims with that label.
New reference to support above quote.
While no system can be 100?% immune to attempts at manipulation, the combination of legal requirements, bipartisan procedural rules, and independent…
Recognizing the systemic nature of the problem shifts the focus from blaming only “bad individuals” to addressing the structural features that…
I asked Proton’s Lumo AI tool about creating a democratic socialist state in the United States of America. Our authoritarian capitalism has…
These examples show that authoritarian capitalism can coexist with a relatively modest ideological veneer, whereas authoritarian fascism embeds a deep, often violent, mythic narrative…
I asked Proton’s Lumo AI tool about replacing authoritarian capitalism with democratic socialism. Just as authoritarian capitalism replaced authoritarian feudalism, what would…
I asked Proton’s Lumo AI tool for ideas on optimizing labor organizations for minimizing worker abuse under authoritarian capitalism. What worker based…
View Comments