Tilled fields for Christian Nationalism: Project Blitz and the evolution of the Christian Right

Christian nationalism has been linked to a variety of political and social outcomes in the contemporary United States, however little research has investigated factors that give rise to it. Most scholars examining Christian nationalism contend that it is unmoored from extant social institutions, and even oppositional to institutional Christianity. This claim is associated with earlier research arguing for the declining influence of denominations, and particularly mainline Protestantism. In contrast, social movement theory views Christian nationalism as an ideological outgrowth of religious organizations, structured by exclusivist religious beliefs, and reenforced through religious participation. Using data from the General Social Survey (GSS) this investigation examines how religious and political factors inform subscription to Christian nationalism and explores how religious and political commitments are connected. In general, the findings support the expectations of the social movement perspective. Christian nationalism is strongly predicted by ties to sectarian Protestantism, religious participation, and fundamentalist beliefs, and it is not embraced by secular and non-Christian Americans.

This paper was presented at the Society for Pastoral Theology annual study conference, Montgomery, AL, June 10, 2022. It is based on the author's book The Psychology of Christian Nationalism: Why People Are Drawn In and How to Talk Across the Divide (Fortress Press, 2022). Cooper-White defines Christian nationalism as a social and political movement with the goal of restoring the US to a fictional origin as a ‘Christian nation’ with a not-at-all fictional origin in white, masculinist supremacy. Christian nationalism is a fanatical, radical departure from the teachings of Jesus and any faithful reading of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, and it is also dangerously anti-democratic. The paper offers an overview of current sociological research on Christian nationalism and its adherents; a discussion of conscious and unconscious motivations that draw people into extremist beliefs, including individual and group psychodynamics and the role of narcissistic demogogues (citing Freud); and how and under what circumstances to talk with people across this current extreme divide in American religion and politics without resorting either to disrespectful dialogue or to superficial appeals to unity.

Influencing public policy through advocacy is an essential strategy used by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) to achieve its health impact goals and programmatic objectives, which include helping all Americans lead healthier lives and reducing the incidence and consequences of cardiovascular disease and stroke. This advocacy work involves and engages the association's national officers, researchers, volunteer advocates, staff, and the general public and is a core strategy and key work process of the AHA/ASA. The organization's strategic approach to influencing public policy and leveraging its science and evidence base is not well known. This article provides the historical context of AHA advocacy, the organizational and legal structure under which these activities are carried out, the process used to develop the association's public policy positions and goals, the approaches used to achieve these goals, and the methods that have been developed to evaluate progress. This statement also examines the various tools and tactics that advocacy organizations use to influence public policy and specifically how the AHA/ASA conducts policy research, legislative and regulatory lobbying, coalition building and grassroots mobilization, and media advocacy. Finally, the ways that AHA/ASA evaluates the impact of its advocacy efforts are discussed, highlighting specific case studies and a brief summary of the association's 2010 to 2013 public policy agenda. The AHA's efforts to translate the science of cardiovascular disease and stroke into meaningful public policy began in earnest in the early 1980s. The association established a full-time office in Washington, DC, in early 1981 that was initially focused on increasing federal research funding administered by the National Institutes of Health.1 Other early policy priorities included tobacco control and support for programs that increased access to automated external defibrillators (AEDs), new clinical preventive benefits in the Medicare program, and nutrition policy. The commitment and involvement of …

How do Americans perceive the orientation of political entities toward religion? Building on group identity theories and burgeoning Christian nationalism research, I theorize Americans' perceptions of friendliness, neutrality, or unfriendliness toward religion will be contingent on the interplay between the specific entity, “identity congruence” (how partisan and ideological identities correspond to the partisan character of the entity), and Christian nationalism. Analyses of data from a large, nationally representative sample of Americans support my expectations. Both Christian nationalism and congruence on political identities predict how Americans perceive the posture of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Supreme Court toward religion. Yet associations differ depending on whether friendliness to religion challenges the entity's legitimacy (e.g., the Supreme Court). Interactions also show the influence of Christian nationalism and political identities on perceptions of friendliness are contingent on one another and the entity. Findings reveal how religious evaluations reflect group interests in complex ways.

This article reviews Public Religious Research Institute (PRRI) 2025 American Values Atlas survey data of 22,000 U.S. adults. Among other issues, the study investigates the Christian nationalism, support for Donald Trump, support of the use of political violence. We find that whereas approximately a third of Americans are supportive of Christian nationalism, a majority of Republicans are nonetheless supportive of it. Furthermore, support for Christian nationalism is highly correlated with voting for Trump in 2024. What is more, support for political violence is also correlated with Christian nationalism. Nearly four in ten Christian nationalism Adherents (38%) and nearly three in ten Sympathizers (28%) said they agree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.” These 2025 findings fit a pattern found in PRRI survey data over the years. Christian nationalists tend to support opinions that are destructive to pluralistic democracy. This includes anti-Black attitudes and denial of the existence of systemic racism, harsh anti-immigrant attitudes, anti-Muslim attitudes, antisemitic attitudes, support for patriarchal gender roles, and anti-LGBTQ attitudes. As pessimistic as these results are, it is also important to keep in mind that Christian nationalist attitudes are held by a relatively small minority of citizens.

Building from the literature on racialization of Muslims, we argue that there are two unique dimensions to anti-Muslim attitudes: Christian nationalism and nativism. Christian nationalism subscribes to the idea of Christianity as being central to American identity, and nativism provides insight into the monopolies regulating citizenship. We then test this framework’s hypotheses on data drawn from the General Social Survey in 2014 to see if these two dimensions predict support for civil rights infringements of Muslim-Americans compared to other outgroups, including atheists, communists, and racists. The results indicate both Christian nationalism and nativism have significant and negative effects on Muslim civil liberties. We also find some differences between the effects of Christian nationalism and nativism on Muslim civil liberties compared to the other outgroups. We interpret these results as an indication that nativism works as an ordering principle to reconstitute who counts as American and who does not.

The COVID-19 Pandemic-Can open access modeling give us better answers more quickly?

Recent US elections saw a rise in the prominence of culture war issues centering around questions of how to address contentious issues including race and history. These debates were often marked by criticism from dominant groups who vocally resisted suggestions that their group could be implicated in wrongdoing. Using data from the 2021 General Social Survey, this paper seeks to understand why conservative Christians are more sensitive to interpreting criticism of their religious group as a personal criticism. It forwards two mechanisms by which this takes place: 1) members fuse their identity with that of their social group, and 2) members have an expectation that their religious group should be held in high esteem. I find that religious commitment and Christian nationalism are strong predictors of interpreting group criticisms as personal attacks. More specifically, I find that, when mapping Christian Nationalism against other identifiers such as race, religious tradition, religious commitment, partisan identity, and ideological identity I find that perceptions of group criticism as a personal attack are predominantly a feature of White, devout, Protestant, and conservative Americans. This paper contributes to understanding the impact of Christian Nationalism in shaping public debate about history and education and its utilization by the Republican Party’s outrage machine.

Canadian social and political historians generally have examined nativism, immigration, racial ideology and immigration policy without looking seriously at the churches’ responses to them. This neglect, although typical of Canadian historiography, should be surprising. It certainly is significant. As the American historian Mark Noll has argued recently, Canada has a better objective argument for having once been a “Christian nation” than the United States. Well into the twentieth century, arguably until after World War II, Canada was in all measurable ways a “Christian nation.” The mainline Protestant churches, particularly, were among the largest and most pervasive institutions in Canada. The churches were powerful culture-shaping organizations, crucial sources of social welfare and reform, and prominent influences on government policy. For these reasons, their responses to immigrants deserve careful attention. This essay will explore attitudes in the Protestant churches during the 1920s and 1930s towards immigrants and racial thought. English-

Overview of “The past as prologue? Decarceration in California then and now”

The past as prologue?

Open AccessUrology PracticeUrology Practice Perspectives1 Mar 2024Stepping Away From Step Therapy for Overactive Bladder: The Role of Urologists in Advocating for Step Therapy Reforms Jeffrey Frankel Jeffrey FrankelJeffrey Frankel Corresponding Author: Jeffrey Frankel, MD, Seattle Urology Research Center, PO Box 1192, Mercer Island, WA 98040 ( ([email protected]) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0142-9015 View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000506AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Consistent long-term therapy is important in the management of patients with many urologic conditions, including overactive bladder (OAB). Characterized by symptoms of increased urinary frequency, urgency, and incontinence, OAB affects up to 27% of men and 43% of women; symptom prevalence and severity increase with age.1 Guidelines from the AUA recommend that anticholinergic medications or β3-adrenergic receptor agonists be offered in conjunction with behavioral therapy as first-line treatments or as second-line treatments.1 Although anticholinergics have been used to treat OAB for decades and may be effective for some patients, recent guidance has emphasized evidence that anticholinergic use is associated with significant risks. The 2023 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria recommend limiting use of anticholinergics in older adults owing to risks of cognitive decline, delirium, and falls or fractures.2 In addition, a recent white paper from the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine, and Urogenital Reconstruction (SUFU) and a report from the American Urogynecologic Society and Pelvic Floor Disorders Research Foundation discussed mounting evidence that anticholinergic use is associated with dementia.3,4 The SUFU white paper recommended that the decision to use anticholinergics for ≥ 3 months to treat OAB should include a clinician-patient discussion of cognitive risks and that a β3-adrenergic receptor agonist should be considered before an anticholinergic when pharmacotherapy was indicated. It also recommended that potential cognitive risks should be considered regardless of patient age and suggested that third-line therapies should be considered earlier in the treatment process for appropriate patients. The American Urogynecologic Society report recommended avoiding anticholinergic treatments for OAB in women > 70 years old, owing to cognitive risks associated with anticholinergic use.4 Unfortunately, efforts by clinicians to minimize cognitive risk in their patients may be hindered by step therapy or "fail first" policies that aim to reduce costs to payers (both commercial and Medicare plans) by requiring patients with OAB to try and fail a low-cost anticholinergic before a β3-adrenergic receptor agonist or third-line treatment will be considered. Although these policies may decrease costs to the payer in the short term, recent reviews and commentaries have highlighted that step therapy practices in OAB are not supported by clinical evidence, may be detrimental for patients' health, and could increase long-term health care resource utilization and costs.5 In practice, step therapy requirements may often interfere with the ability of clinicians to care for their patients with OAB. For example, when patients change insurers, they and the provider may be required to trial an anticholinergic that has already failed or that they have found intolerable before a β3-adrenergic receptor agonist or third-line treatment that is currently working will be reimbursed. Appeals are possible but can be burdensome and frustrating for providers and patients, potentially leading to delayed treatment, adverse events, and/or therapy discontinuation. These issues also burden clinicians and administrative staff, requiring them to spend countless hours filling out prior authorizations and appeals for patients to receive medically appropriate therapy. Providers must use caution when reviewing pharmacist recommendations for step therapy–related medication substitutions to ensure that a substitution is medically appropriate. In addition, caution is warranted when prescribing using an electronic medical record, as it may default to generic medications. Additionally, miscommunications may arise if patients do not return for follow-up. This can result in patients receiving and staying on a potentially inappropriate anticholinergic when the clinician originally intended to prescribe a β3-adrenergic receptor agonist. Although it is important to minimize unnecessary health care costs, reducing costs may be accomplished by policies, such as proposed legislation to improve transparency of pharmacy benefit managers,6 that do not compromise patients' access to needed medications. A recent position paper from the American College of Physicians recommended that step therapy policies should, at minimum, be patient centered; minimize disruption, harm, and risks to the patient; and include a timely appeals process.7 Public policy changes regulating step therapy use may be the most effective and practical solution to achieve step therapy reforms that meet the American College of Physicians criteria. Legislation at the state level has made substantial progress toward step therapy reforms. A recent review found that, as of 2021, 29 states had passed laws limiting step therapy protocols (Table).8 Although laws vary by state, common requirements include mandatory step therapy exceptions when a required drug is expected to be ineffective or is contraindicated; exceptions are also mandatory for patients who have tried a drug previously or are stable on their current treatment.8,9 Most state laws require insurers to respond to the request for an exception within a certain period of time, and if this does not happen, the request is automatically granted. Table. Key Provisions of Current Step Therapy Laws Policy States No step therapy protectionsa Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Washington DC, Wyoming Accepted reasons for step therapy exceptiona Patient tried and failed drug Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Drug ineffective in past or expected to be ineffective Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Drug contraindicated or likely to cause adverse reaction or harm or not in the best interest of the patient Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Patient responding positively to current regimen, drug has been previously approved, or provider's original prescription would likely be effective Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Time limitsa Does not include time limit (insurer can deny exemption request by never responding) Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, West Virginia, Wisconsin Includes time limit (exemption request approved if prespecified time limit exceeded) Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington Appeals of insurer decisionb Appeal possible Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin No appeal possible California, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, West Virginia Data from Tharp and Rothblatt8 and updated to include additional states that have enacted step therapy legislation per www.steptherapy.com.9 Data from Tharp and Rothblatt.8 Although this is an excellent start, the state laws are inconsistent and may offer limited protection to many patients. In some states, insurers have no specified time window to respond to exception requests, or there is no appeals process if exemptions are denied, making step therapy regulations difficult to enforce and permitting unnecessary delays to treatment initiation. Existing state laws apply to recipients of state-regulated health plans (nongroup coverage and some fully insured employer plans) and, in some states, Medicaid beneficiaries. However, about half of individuals in the United States are covered by self-insured employer plans, which are not subject to state oversight, per the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Pending federal legislation may be able to provide step therapy safeguards for many individuals who are not protected by state laws. The Safe Step Act is a bipartisan bill, introduced in both the US House of Representatives and Senate, that would require group health insurance plans to provide a clear process for granting exemptions to step therapy protocols, including expedited approval if a first-step medication was expected to be ineffective, unsafe, or not in the best interests of the patient, and for patients who are stable on current therapy.10 It would also require insurers to respond within 3 days of an exemption request (or 24 hours for emergencies) and provide protection for all people on employer health plans by amending the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Additionally, the GOLD CARD Act, which was introduced in the US House of Representatives in 2023, would eliminate Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements for providers who receive approvals on > 90% of authorizations, potentially streamlining the step therapy process for some providers.11 In light of potential side effects and risks associated with anticholinergic medication, particularly constipation, falls, and incident dementia, implementing national limits on the use of anticholinergic step therapy should be an urgent priority. Although step therapy reforms enjoy wide support from clinicians and relevant professional organizations, including the AUA,12 advocacy from frontline clinicians is important to ensure that policy changes protecting our patients are enacted in a timely manner on the state and federal levels. As step therapy policies are a concern across multiple practice types, individual clinicians can get involved by partnering with relevant professional organizations at the national, state, and local levels to advocate for reforms that would best serve our patients and reduce the unnecessary burden step therapy policies impose on physicians. Involving patients in this effort will be especially important to emphasize the unmet need for policies that effectively manage costs while remaining patient centered and leaving medical decision-making in the hands of clinicians and patients.

This chapter explores how social movements have a considerable impact on the analysis of Thailand’s public policies. The focus is on how social movements placed their programmes on the political agenda, aided the agenda’s passage into policy and supported the enforcement, and influenced the policy process from within. It explores why some social movements succeeded in pushing for new and alternative policies, but others did not. Delving into the interplay between political and social changes and movements’ strategies, this chapter reveals how employing confrontation or collaboration strategy had different impacts on government responses at the policy level. It also teases out the context of political polarisation and the processes within which collaboration became co-optation, and how co-optation derailed the policy changes that social movements pursued. Further, this chapter offers an analysis of how the colour-coded politics, the 2014 coup and the 2019 election remarkably shaped the movements’ strategies for policy engagement.

Whereas Christianity can be read through different political lenses, conservative as well as progressive, the phenomenon of Christian Nationalism in the United States has taken a distinctly illiberal turn. Christian Nationalism has become the “deep story” behind the rise of Donald Trump and the transformation of the Republican Party, offering it a powerful millennialist political framework. In Christian Nationalism, executive authority is ordained by God, the nation is blessed by God’s special favor, natural-born citizens have claim to a unique status in God’s divine plan for his chosen nation, and social, racial, and gender hierarchies are a part of His plan. Social imaginaries such as these are tapped into by political organizations to mobilize supporters of Republican candidates. Similar “divine plans” can be found in other national political dynamics. This opening article provides an overview of the contributions to this special symposium on religion and politics around the 2024 US elections as it adumbrates an analytical framework for understanding a potential illiberal turn in the growing embrace of Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism often shapes the political views of Black and White Americans differently, particularly on racial justice issues, inclining White Americans toward more reactionary views while often inclining Black Americans toward more progressive views. In this study, we show Christian nationalism can operate similarly for Black and White Americans on “moral issues,” to the Republican Party’s benefit. Drawing on national data collected before the 2024 Presidential election, and focusing on whether Americans were prioritizing abortion in selecting their 2024 Presidential candidate, analyses show that as Christian nationalism increases, Black and White Americans (even Strong Democrats) became less likely to view protecting abortion access as a priority. We also find evidence Black Republicans became more motivated in the opposite direction. Findings suggest Republican candidates can leverage Christian nationalist rhetoric around issues like abortion to promote “multiethnic coalitions of exclusion,” neutralizing Black Democrats and possibly mobilizing Black Republicans on religiously-coded “moral issues.”