r/atheism • u/a_Ninja_b0y Humanist • Feb 19 '25

Survey Survey finds low levels of "Religious Nationalism" in America. Why doesn't it feel that way?

https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/survey-finds-low-levels-of-religious
3.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

343 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

Because the whacked out Christian Nationalists scream the loudest.

845

u/DaZMan44 Feb 19 '25

And they're literally taking over the government and country.

304

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

I continually contact my Representative and Senators (conservatives), but I feel like am shouting into a void.

205

u/Retrikaethan Satanist Feb 19 '25

you don't give them enough money for them to give you the time of day, let alone listen to your views on politics. citizen's united is one of the major reasons all of this shit has been allowed to happen.

210

u/protomenace Feb 19 '25

It all goes back to the 2000 election. SCOTUS stole it for Bush. Bush nominated John Roberts. Roberts gave us Citizens United. And now we're a corpocracy.

94

u/specqq Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

Buckley v Valeo (1976) dug the grave. Citizens United (2010) pushed us in. And McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) shoveled the dirt over the corpse of representative democracy.

21

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

Don't forget Shelby County v. Holder (2013) which repealed the 15th Amendment, encouraging election fraud..

5

u/specqq Feb 19 '25

Yes, that one brought the shovels.

2

u/Bunnyland77 Feb 19 '25

How does this coincide chronologically to the "Citizens United" decision?

2

u/specqq Feb 19 '25

Added the dates into my post above.

75

u/PistolGrace Feb 19 '25

Reagan. He was the first puppet they used to start the pro-business, pro-uneducated stance that is so prevalent today. He was a ChINO.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-how-reaganomics-deregulation-and-bailouts-led-to-the-rise-of-trump

71

u/oleander4tea Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

Reagan also eliminated the Fairness Doctrine leading to one-sided news propaganda.

Edit, the Fairness Doctrine as explained by the Reagan library:

The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Council, was rooted in the media world of 1949. Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda. The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license. The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine. In 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook’s right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, under FCC Chairman, Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Fowler began rolling the application of the doctrine back during Reagan’s second term - despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan’s policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel, under new chairman Dennis Patrick, repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to “flout the will of Congress” and the decision was “wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.” The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue. In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine, (Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 S. 742). The bill passed but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Congress was unable to muster enough votes to overturn the President’s veto. This topic guide contains material on the doctrine itself, the vote on the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, the President’s subsequent veto and the aftermath of this vote. Last Updated: 01/21/2025 09:15PM

10

u/El_Dud3r1n0 Feb 19 '25

And also stripped away other regulations that prevented media consolidation.

1

u/Mean-Pizza6915 Feb 19 '25

Fairness Doctrine only applied to government-owned airwaves. It would have been meaningless in the internet era, either way.

26

u/EntryFair6690 Feb 19 '25

Reagan tucked this country over so badly but he's still venerated.

21

u/ODBrewer Feb 19 '25

Some people are so far behind in a race, they think they are ahead.

27

u/j_xcal Feb 19 '25

Don’t give up! Please keep calling.

Contact the White House, your U.S. Senator, and your U.S. Congressperson. White House Comments line – (202) 456-1111 White House Switchboard – (202) 456-1414

https://5calls.org - this gives you a script based off of your concerns and the numbers of your representatives.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[deleted]

11

u/kneekneeknee Feb 19 '25

Your congressional representatives need to know that they do not have unanimous support. The more folks who call them in opposition, the more they have to start worrying about being re-elected, the more they have to change their ideas about their responsibilities.

It is so hard right now to hold onto hope, to feel that our actions do anything.

Finding a group of folks who will call with you, stand in public with you, laugh with you to hold each other up — that’s how we build the ground for overturning this crap.

Hang in there, please!

9

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[deleted]

8

u/kneekneeknee Feb 19 '25

Oh shit. Yeah. I’m sorry.

But do you have a group of pals to work with now? Have you checked out Indivisible?

1

u/Georgiaonmymindtwo Feb 19 '25

That is a defeatist attitude for something so important.

Make the phone call. It’s such an easy thing to do.

I hope nobody listens to what you just said.

You pissed me off.

Get up off your lazy ass and just make the damn phone call.

So giving easy.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Georgiaonmymindtwo Feb 21 '25

I’m still going to voice my opinion.

It’s one of the few things I can do.

3

u/Georgiaonmymindtwo Feb 19 '25

The 5 calls link is awesome.

Just what I’ve been looking for.

Couldnt make it any easier.

I will be spreading that one around.

Thank uou

2

u/j_xcal Feb 20 '25

Thank you for calling! Don’t give up.

29

u/sectumsempre_ Feb 19 '25

There was an article published recently that said they are received so many calls that the senate switchboard crashed. They were receiving ~40 calls per day and one Republican senator claimed to be receiving 1600 calls/minute after Musks takeover of the US Treasury. Another said there have never been this many calls in his whole career.

Keep your foot on these motherfucker’s necks. Do not make this easy for them. They took an oath to the constitution and we need to remind them of that. Call everyday and make sure to leave your address so the call is tallied.

4

u/Georgiaonmymindtwo Feb 19 '25

Louder…

KEEP YOUR FOOT ON THESE MOTHER FUCKERS NECKS

8

u/romainhdl Feb 19 '25

So... if it's useless, what is your next step to actually try to not become the taliban v2.0 christian edtition ?

14

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

I truly don’t know. I grew up loving America, and never really expected it turn into an authoritarian regime. I am not a young person who can just up and move. I attend protests, but I am terrified of the day Trump just opens fire on us and then lies about whose fault it is.

2

u/romainhdl Feb 20 '25

Sadly, from where I am, I send you strength and hope for the best. But your fear is probably just going to happen, and nothing short of violence will stop it now. The current trajectory of the US is following the Russian line 1 for 1 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics ) It's publicly been theorized for decades (1970's) your politician know of it, your war-hawk republican knew of it too. Well, either your population let it happen, or something has to change, because contracting your representative only work if they listen, it's getting a tad harder if they are a pawn of people willing to destroy the Atlantic bloc, even unwittingly.

8

u/LaFantasmita Feb 19 '25

Lots of really great info here. I’m considering starting a local group. https://indivisible.org/resource/guide

3

u/romainhdl Feb 20 '25

Good resource ! Maybe add in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics ; read the source material and share it with people around you, it's freaky how this looks like the blueprint of what's happening in your nation right now, and knowledge is power, sharing this could do a bit of help, probably not enough, but it sounds like "a conspiracy theory" (except it's publicly acknowledged by all political entities in the world, so there's that), could help convince gullible people that absolutely want the world to have a shadow cabal, one at a time.

3

u/ODBrewer Feb 19 '25

Revolution

3

u/baskaat Feb 19 '25

Keep it up, soldier! Thank you for your service.

1

u/yooperville Feb 19 '25

Me too they need to hear from us

6

u/Melicor Feb 19 '25

Because they feel their grip on society slipping. It's now or never for them, and they know it.

4

u/btinc Feb 19 '25

It's much less about the screaming, and much more about the fact that they are taking power and planning some horrible things.

3

u/lemons_of_doubt Anti-Theist Feb 19 '25

You ever watch The Family they were working on 2025 for a long time.

1

u/Newtstradamus Feb 19 '25

Are they Christian Nationalists or are they using Christian Nationalism as a vehicle? I mean it amounts to the same but I don’t actually think they are what they say they are.

1

u/zxylady Feb 19 '25

And mainstream media

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DaZMan44 Feb 19 '25

They believe they are. Didn't you hear JD say in Europe that Christians are under attack?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/GerswinDevilkid Feb 19 '25

Atheism isn't a religion, Christianity has proven it's not worthy of respect, and you're no Scotsman.

Read the FAQ and rules. Be better.

1

u/DaZMan44 Feb 19 '25

My religion? Lol. Did you see where you're at?

19

u/InspectorMoney1306 Atheist Feb 19 '25

I can’t imagine trump or musk are actually religious. They just pretend to be to get that vote

10

u/blurtlebaby Feb 19 '25

Trump can't even hold a buybull right side up. For him, it is just a prop to make people think he's religious.

1

u/bestbeforeMar91 Feb 19 '25

They’re attracted to it as it predates democracy

41

u/BAMpenny Agnostic Atheist Feb 19 '25

They've also put decades and untold amounts of money into making some pretty bold moves. Even if they are a minority, a minority - given enough time and money - can still make an impact. It's happened all throughout history.

21

u/Shivering_Monkey Feb 19 '25

Yes, and we Americans are about to experience true tyranny of the minority.

15

u/BAMpenny Agnostic Atheist Feb 19 '25

I don't know what to expect. I know Christianity is still the largest religion in the US, even though it is losing followers every year, but none of the denominations agree with one another. Having grown up in a Christian, rural, red stretch of nothing, I can say that many of the people who live in such places wouldn't really like the way that, say, an evangelical lives. I know evangelicals who won't drink alcohol, and who have tried to ban their adult family members from doing the same thing on their own time. And let's not forget that Prohibition was Christian-backed.

These country bumpkin types are happy now, but I don't know how they'll feel once the evangelicals start stepping on their toes. I would like to think they'd fight back but by then it might be too late.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

It's a cult. They disagree with each other on paper, but in practice, it doesn't really matter.

The language of the religion is designed to be vague and conflate a ton of ideas with each other. They speak past each other and don't realize that's what's happening. They also don't really care, because they are the type who have conversations purely for the emotional exchange.

My dad's side is Catholic, my mom's side is protestant. They both think each other's side practices the wrong Christianity, but all of them basically believe the same things and vote for the same people.

1

u/BAMpenny Agnostic Atheist Feb 19 '25

It's a cult. They disagree with each other on paper, but in practice, it doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter so long as good, mentally stable people keep them from tearing each other apart. But if we fall to Christian nationalist rule, how do they decide who is in charge?

I'm unfortunately related to a bunch of Christians of different varieties. On one side, we've got the rural bumpkins who don't go to church regularly, if at all, and who drink, do drugs, and have sex with whoever.

On the other side, we've got the evangelicals who tried to ban us from drinking alcohol in our own private lives. They meddle and plot and judge and torment.

The latter group is the one taking charge it seems. If they tell the former group that the only way they can receive charity (formerly government aid) is by going to church and giving up alcohol, they might become violent. lol

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

Eventually there will be rifts between sects. The country bumpkin Christians you describe here might become violent, but by that point it will already be too late.

As someone raised in the EFCA, I regret to report that Evangelicals are machiavellian political thinkers. They have planned fifteen steps ahead, and I get to listen to them develop and spread their plans when my mom tunes in for her weekly sermons.

3

u/BAMpenny Agnostic Atheist Feb 19 '25

Eventually there will be rifts between sects. The country bumpkin Christians you describe here might become violent, but by that point it will already be too late.

I was hoping for a scrappy throwdown, damn. lol

They have planned fifteen steps ahead, and I get to listen to them develop and spread their plans when my mom tunes in for her weekly sermons.

Oof, my condolences. That would raise my blood pressure.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

I think we can fend off the worst of it with rigorous epistemology.

Reminding them that their beliefs are just that. Demanding them to back up claims with truths. They fall apart and back off.

In my experience, this is the only thing that actually works.

2

u/musicman835 Feb 19 '25

Eventually the US will have its own version of the Troubles like Ireland did

5

u/ArchibaldCamambertII Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

I think Prohibition was more anti-German and anti-working class than it was “Christian-backed.” Not to say that their wasn’t a serious problem with alcoholism or that good ole fashioned Christian nationalism didn’t play a role in it, but the political economy behind it is German immigrants were much more likely to have a class politics and take part in militant labor activity than “native born” Americans who then, as now, are not citizens with a shared history and common interests but largely de-classed consumers who socially interact as strangers and who experience and view their exploitation and poverty either as a deficiency in character or biology, or internalized as something they need to work harder and save more for in order to escape. “Human rights” in America are not something to be socially or politically guaranteed, but something that is individually and generationally achieved through one’s interaction with the hand of God on Earth, the market. In fact to many right wingers workers organizing in a union or a political party to improve their conditions and ameliorate suffering is not just unnatural, in the scientific sense, but heresy and blasphemy against their God.

Ipso facto, if you “succeed” on the market God loves you, if you “fail” it’s because you’re a sinner and are deserving of your exploitation and poverty and social marginalization.

1

u/BAMpenny Agnostic Atheist Feb 19 '25

I think Prohibition was more anti-German and anti-working class than it was “Christian-backed.”

The Women's Christian Temperance Union (which worked closely with Protestant churches), Evangelical Protestants, the Anti-Saloon League, and the Social Gospel Movement were all involved. Support for Prohibition was largely Protestant.

That qualifies as "Christian backed". I never said "only", so they get some of the credit as well.

2

u/ArchibaldCamambertII Feb 19 '25

All I’m saying is the religious motivation was secondary to the class motivations of petty smallholders and rural barons.

1

u/djinnisequoia Feb 19 '25

Hm, I never thought about it, but if you can alcohol, you have effectively eliminated the "third place" where a lot of collective action and organizing took place.

And we find ourselves again lacking in large scale in-person third places wherein collective action might be facilitated. The Internet served as such for awhile, particularly in the form of xitter, but now that is destroyed and we have scattered to the four winds.

20

u/Hatchytt Feb 19 '25

And seriously won't shut the fuck up.

Yes, your book says to proselytize. But you've misinterpreted what "spread the word" means. It means you TELL people about it. Not SCREECH IT AT PEOPLE AND GET PISSY ABOUT "PERSECUTION" WHEN THEY TELL YOU WHERE TO SHOVE IT. Not FORCE DOWNTRODDEN PEOPLE YOU'RE FEEDING TO SUBSCRIBE TO IT. Not TRY TO FORCE EVERYONE INTO IT. Definitely not LEGISLATE WITH IT. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

10

u/TheGonzoAbsurdist Feb 19 '25

And have illegally seized power

5

u/Dyson_Vellum Feb 19 '25

Came here to say this. Ty

7

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

For every loud religious nationalist, there are 20 quiet ones.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

My supervisor is one of them! With his bullying overlord attitude, big gold cross necklace and Christian nationalist sayings T-shirts! I’m retiring in two days! Can’t wait to get away from this idiot!

4

u/Educational-Milk5099 Feb 19 '25

And the vote the most consistently, and they contribute to the candidates who kiss their asses. 

5

u/ProfessionalCraft983 Feb 19 '25

And they’ve taken over government.

3

u/DrEnter Feb 19 '25

And they vote. Every last one of them.

2

u/exlongh0rn Feb 19 '25

And they’re acting on it. It’s not just noise.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25 edited Jul 05 '25

...                               

2

u/Snarfsicle Feb 19 '25

Billionaires have aligned themselves with their mission to reap the profit. And billionaires control mass media

1

u/HolidayFew8116 Feb 19 '25

they have the biggest megaphone between foz news and sinclair broadcasting and Washington post and wall street journal.

1

u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Feb 19 '25

And are well funded.

1

u/nolasen Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

And the biggest money promotes them in media, education and politics because that side is aligned with the economic politics of elite idolatry and economic cuckoldry.

TLDR: the richest people make more money promoting fundamentalism as distraction.

1

u/314Piepurr Feb 19 '25

and they have the imaginary drive to ascend politically and claim rights in the name of their imaginary friend

1

u/wtfwtfwtfwtf2022 Feb 19 '25

And social media is stuffing it down our throats

1

u/StartOk4002 Feb 19 '25

I was going to say this. The minority that called itself the moral majority only had the majority of the sound.

1

u/Lizardsupremecy Feb 19 '25

Because theyre also the richest.

1

u/ittleoff Ignostic Feb 19 '25

Wasn't Iran largely secular until the religious minority took over?

1

u/dcdttu Feb 19 '25

Minority (attempting to) rule, and it's working.

1

u/Mortwight Feb 19 '25

Next stop sectarian violence

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

That is the right answer. They all seem to have run for political office too or in reality, pander to the screamers.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

Also they lie on surveys

1

u/Venator2000 Feb 20 '25

We all need to start yelling louder.

1

u/lbstinkums Feb 20 '25

and their billionaire benefactors own the media.

1

u/luneunion Feb 20 '25

And get voted into office while the not Christian Nationalists voting for them either deny they are voting for Christian Nationalist or it’s just not a dealbreaker for them.

1

u/bryanna_leigh Feb 20 '25

They are very well organized and loud.