Christian Nationalism: A Warning About Democracy, History, and Constitutional Principles

The growing prominence of Christian nationalism in American political life deserves serious attention — not because Christianity itself is a threat to democracy, but because the fusion of religious identity with national identity and governmental power raises fundamental questions about religious liberty, equality before the law, and the constitutional principle that government belongs to citizens of every faith and of no faith.

We should also remember our history.

The Tulsa Race Massacre

The Tulsa Race Massacre of May 31 and June 1, 1921, remains one of the most devastating episodes of racial violence in American history. Greenwood, a prosperous Black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was attacked by white mobs. Homes, businesses, churches, and other buildings were burned and destroyed, and many Black residents were killed, injured, imprisoned, or driven from their homes. The National Park Service describes the destruction of approximately 35 blocks of Greenwood and identifies the event as one of the most devastating acts of racial violence in American history.

It is important, however, to use historically accurate language. Jim Crow was not an individual person; it was a system of laws, customs, racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and white supremacy that operated throughout much of the United States. That system formed part of the broader racial environment in which events such as the Tulsa Massacre occurred.

These are not myths, rumors, speculations, or questions. They are part of the historical record. Remembering them is not an attempt to divide Americans. On the contrary, confronting the history of racial violence is essential to understanding why constitutional protections of equal citizenship and the rule of law matter.

What Does Christian Nationalism Mean?

The term Christian nationalism can mean different things in public discussion, but researchers generally use it to describe a political and cultural framework that seeks to closely identify Christianity with American national identity and, in some formulations, to give Christian beliefs a privileged role in government and public institutions.

For example, PRRI's research measures Christian nationalism through questions concerning whether the government should declare America a Christian nation, whether U.S. laws should be based on Christian values, whether being Christian is essential to being truly American, and whether Christians should exercise authority over all areas of American society.

That distinction matters. Being Christian is not the same thing as being a Christian nationalist. Millions of Americans are devout Christians while simultaneously supporting religious pluralism, constitutional government, and the separation of governmental authority from religious doctrine.

Likewise, criticism of Christian nationalism should not become hostility toward Christians. The issue is not whether Americans may practice Christianity. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. The question is whether the government should identify itself with one religious tradition or permit religious doctrine to determine the rights and obligations of citizens who hold different beliefs.

Recent PRRI research indicates that Christian-nationalist views exist across the American population, although their prevalence varies substantially among religious and political groups. Its 2025 data classified approximately 11% of Americans as adherents and 21% as sympathizers, while 37% were classified as skeptics and 27% as rejecters. PRRI also reports a strong association between these views and Republican identification, although that association should not be interpreted to mean that every Republican is a Christian nationalist or that every Christian nationalist belongs to one political party.

Constitutional Government Must Protect Everyone

The United States was not established as a government belonging exclusively to Christians. Its constitutional system protects citizens regardless of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or members of another faith or no faith at all.

That principle becomes especially important when political movements argue that governmental authority should reflect a particular religious understanding of morality.

An agnostic or atheist citizen may reasonably question religious claims and ask what evidence supports them. A religious citizen may answer those questions from faith and theological conviction. Both citizens nevertheless possess the same constitutional rights.

Faith and government should therefore be examined carefully rather than treated as interchangeable concepts. A person can be deeply religious and fully committed to constitutional pluralism. Conversely, political arguments can invoke religious language without representing the beliefs of Christianity as a whole.

Political Power and Accountability

There is also a broader question of political accountability.

Presidents, members of Congress, senators, governors, judges, and other public officials exercise enormous power over the lives of ordinary citizens. Their conduct should therefore be examined through evidence: their public statements, legislation, votes, executive actions, court decisions, financial disclosures, ethical records, and adherence to constitutional and legal requirements.

Criticism of public officials is an essential part of democratic government. But criticism is strongest when it focuses on documented conduct rather than broad assumptions about an entire population.

For that reason, it is important to distinguish between criticizing particular Republican politicians, criticizing particular policies associated with the Republican Party, and condemning every Republican voter or every Republican officeholder as sharing the same ideology. Those are different claims and should not be treated as interchangeable.

The same standard should apply to Democrats, Republicans, independents, religious organizations, secular organizations, and every other political or civic institution.

The Rule of Law Must Apply to Everyone

One of the most important principles in a constitutional democracy is that political power does not place anyone above the law.

Disagreements about presidents, congressional leaders, Supreme Court decisions, abortion policy, civil rights, immigration, elections, executive power, or religious liberty should be settled through constitutional institutions and lawful democratic processes rather than intimidation or political violence.

The same principle applies regardless of which political party controls the White House, Congress, state governments, or the courts.

America's history demonstrates what can happen when racial identity, political power, economic interests, and governmental authority combine to deny some citizens equal protection. The Tulsa Massacre is one of the clearest reminders that constitutional principles cannot be treated as mere words. They must be applied to everyone.

Remembering History Without Repeating It

The lesson of Tulsa is not simply that something terrible happened more than a century ago. The deeper lesson is that democratic institutions can fail when prejudice, political power, misinformation, and disregard for the rights of others are permitted to overwhelm the rule of law.

We should remember Greenwood — not merely as a place destroyed, but as a thriving Black community whose residents built businesses, churches, homes, and institutions despite the discrimination of their era.

We should remember Jim Crow — not as the name of an individual, but as a system that denied millions of Americans equal citizenship.

We should remember that religious liberty means freedom for religion and freedom from governmental religious coercion.

And we should remember that the Constitution belongs to Americans of every race, religion, political affiliation, and philosophical belief.

Political participation matters because constitutional democracy ultimately depends upon citizens who are willing to learn, question, examine evidence, and hold public officials accountable. Voters should therefore study candidates' records rather than relying solely on campaign slogans, party labels, advertisements, or personal loyalty.

The challenge before Americans is not to decide which political tribe is inherently good or evil. It is to defend principles that must apply regardless of who holds power: equal citizenship, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, due process, constitutional government, peaceful political participation, and the rule of law.

If those principles are genuinely sacred, they cannot belong to one party, one religion, one race, or one political movement.

They must belong to everyone.