Rebuttal to Dr. Pollard part 2

Rebuttal to Dr. Pollard on Christian Nationalism Part 2
By Ron Corson

Dr. Pollard at 27:20: 

I mean that's a separation of church and state doesn't exist.

This is a confusing part of the transcript because the host inserts some nonsense, making the video portion important to understand the meaning. But what Pollard is saying is that at the 250-year Celebration in July in Washington, D.C., over and over people said we have left our Christian heritage and God is not pleased, and we should return to that, and he apparently hypothesizes that if we need to use legislation to bring us back to that, let's use it. Then he goes into the frequent Progressive trope that conservatives are wrong to say there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Here is a Google Ngram of the frequency of the use of the term separation of church and state. A term not in the First Amendment but in a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist church expressing how the state shall not infringe on the rights of conscience or social duties.

As can be seen in the Google Ngram, the term took on a new life after the Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vitale (1962). The case stemmed from a New York State Board of Regents authorization for a brief, voluntary prayer for students. Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion declared that government-written prayers breach the First Amendment's "wall of separation between Church and State". The Court dismissed the argument that the prayer's voluntary or neutral nature made it acceptable, emphasizing that government-backed religious acts exert implicit pressure on students.

This view set in place a whole set of changes in the government. Over the next forty years, the precedent set in Engel was systematically applied to push religious exercises out of nearly all official public school functions. The downstream legal dominoes fell across several distinct areas. The legal logic of Engel—that the state cannot use public school infrastructure to endorse a faith—eventually impacted physical environments. In Stone v. Graham (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public school classroom was unconstitutional

School districts tried to argue that while classroom prayer was banned, religious invocations were still acceptable at landmark extracurricular school events. The Court consistently disagreed, citing the foundational principles laid out in 1962. The Court ruled that inviting clergy to deliver invocations or benedictions at public middle and high school graduation ceremonies was unconstitutional. Outlawing student-led, broadcasted prayers over the stadium loudspeakers before varsity high school football games.

The legal chaos and influx of religious freedom lawsuits triggered by Engel forced the Supreme Court to create a uniform test to evaluate all future church-state laws. This culminated in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which established a three-pronged test requiring that any law dealing with religion must have a secular purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not result in "excessive government entanglement" with religion. This remained the supreme standard of church-state law for half a century.

When the Supreme Court signaled that government entities could not endorse religious activities, civil rights groups began suing municipalities over long-standing public religious displays—most notably Christmas nativity scenes (crèches), Hanukkah menorahs, and Ten Commandments monuments on public property. This shift created a major cornerstone of what modern media calls the "War on Christmas" cultural debate.

"There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution" has become the single most definitive trigger for the "Christian Nationalist" accusation.

From a purely textual standpoint, conservatives who make this argument are stating a literal fact: the exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution or the First Amendment. Instead, the text simply reads: 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Despite this being a factual observation about the text, progressive commentators, secular media, and political opponents immediately equate this argument with Christian Nationalism.

A conservative can hold a deep reverence for the Constitution, completely rejecting the fringe ideas of Dominionism or Reconstructionism, and still accurately note that Jefferson’s "wall" phrase has been misused by modern courts to over-secularize public life. For them, it is a debate about constitutional interpretation and religious liberty.

Because progressives like Pollard, even though claiming he is unbiased, often fail to understand the internal distinctions within conservative thought, they group diverse views together when it suits them. Anyone who critiques the phrase  “separation of church and state" is automatically assumed to be working off the fringe Dominionist playbook to establish a Theonomy/theocracy.

Pollard continues when asked by the host this question at 29:55:

Summarize for us your understanding of what Christian nationalism is and how is that different from loving your country.

Okay so let me give you the simple one and then the more complex definition. The simple definition is Christian nationalism is the belief that America was and I said America but I wrote for 14 different national contexts in the book but let's stay with America because that's where we are right now. Okay. It's the belief that America was, is this the simple definition, was, is, or should be, as I heard someone say recently at the NAD conference, was, is, or should be a Christian nation.

Now, you can parse that. It was, is, or should be a that's the simple definition. Here's the more complex definition.

The American Republic was founded as a Christian nation, and it will only have future success if it returns to its origins. And the government's role is to return it by any means necessary. If it needs the agents and instruments of government and law to do that, it should do it. And when you listen to people who are avowed Christian nationalists, as you heard at the 250th celebration, they are perfectly willing to legislate their way to this vision.

Now that is where revelation see the other one if I believe it was, is, or should be. If I just believe that and I don't do anything about it. Okay. Well, you got your right to believe; I got my right to believe. Okay. So, we just it's it's a democracy. You believe one thing; I believe. That's fine. Okay. But Christian nationalism goes beyond simple belief. Christian nationalism says the government should use the tools of power, the tools available to it in order to bring the country back to the founding for the reason for which it was founded quote to be a Christian nation. That's what Christian nationalism is. And that's what [clears throat] that's what makes it dangerous. It's you it is willing to use the implements of government to legislate its way to this vision for the country, and it's a mythological vision because as I show in the work, you really can't make an argument that the country was founded as a Christian nation.

Host: And that's going to be another uh that's that's where the debate begins because there's a lot of different views when it comes to that. [Then plays video of unknown speaker who appears to be a Dominionist]

The main takeaway here is that Pollard says you can’t make an argument that the country was founded as a Christian nation. Of course you can make that argument, as the host points out there are a lot of different views and, more importantly, you have to define what you mean by a Christian nation.

Notice here that without even defining what he means by a Christian nation, he uses that term as his definition of a Christian nationalist. It could be that in his book he is more articulate, though it seems if he had thought this through he would never use an ill-defined term as the central definition for another ill-defined term.

When someone states that the United States is a "Christian nation" or was "founded as a Christian nation," the meaning can vary drastically depending on the speaker's political, historical, or theological context. Scholars, legal experts, and cultural commentators generally categorize these claims into several distinct interpretations.

Statistical interpretation: It means that the vast majority of the population historically identified, or currently identifies, as Christian. When the nation was founded, the overwhelming majority of citizens (excluding Native Americans and enslaved peoples) were of European, Christian heritage. Even as the country has grown more secular and pluralistic, Christianity remains the largest religious demographic.

The Cultural and Ethical Meaning: This perspective argues that American laws, virtues, and societal norms are rooted in Judeo-Christian values. Proponents of this view point out that:

Western concepts of human rights and justice were heavily influenced by Christian theology.

The legal systems of the colonies and early states borrowed heavily from English common law, which was intertwined with Christian ethics.

Public language, national holidays (like Christmas), and cultural milestones historically mirrored Christian traditions.

Philosophical and Intellectual Meaning: Specific ideas that influenced the Founding Fathers. It presents a hybrid reality: while many founders were orthodox Christians, many others were Deists or Enlightenment rationalists. However, even the non-orthodox founders were deeply educated in biblical scripture and Christian political philosophy (such as the writings of John Locke). They frequently utilized biblical metaphors in their speeches and writings, viewing religion as essential for maintaining public morality in a republic.

The Legal and Constitutional Meaning (Theocratic or Christian Nationalism)

This is the most controversial interpretation. It argues that the United States was intentionally established to have a formal, legal obligation to the Christian faith.

The Secular Rebuttal: Historians and legal scholars overwhelmingly reject this, pointing to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which explicitly stated that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

The Christian Nationalist View: Proponents of this meaning advocate for a return to what they believe was an original mandate where civil laws should explicitly align with biblical principles, and Christians should hold structural power in governance.

Three of the above 4 meanings are not controversial and can easily apply to the United States of America as a Christian nation. The fourth does not have much support, and it is the one the Dominionists use; due to progressive political manipulation, it has become known as Christian nationalism. The unity of the colonies to remove the religious tests for government positions and the refusal to accept even one of the Christian denominations for the new country show that the idea of founding a nation where only Christians hold the power of governance was not at all the founding idea. Once again, we see that the use of Christian nationalism is a broad brush used to paint those who oppose progressivism as fringe. This is why people like Pollard don’t use the specific term with a specific meaning, it is a purposeful deception, there is no reason to not be specific.

Speaking of a chapter in the Ellen White book The Desire of Ages 34:49 Pollard says:

“Anyone who reads that chapter would think she wrote it today because she talks about people who want to bring in the kingdom of God through human means. They want to use legislation.”

I would not argue with that point, but it should be pointed out that in a republic, wanting legislation to better society is not the same as trying to bring in the Kingdom of God. Once again, his argument is against Dominionism. It is also noticeable that saying people want to bring in the Kingdom of God with legislation and not saying the names of these people is another technique to hide the specifics from people so that the broad brush of Christian Nationalism can scare people.

Christianity Today has published essays arguing that "Christian nationalism" is a nebulous and slippery term that lacks a single, coherent definition among academics. Pieces such as "It’s Not ‘Christian Nationalism.’ It’s Conservative Identity Politics." and "How (Not) to Talk About ‘Christian Nationalism’" suggest the label often conflates traditional religious practices with radical political extremes. Read the full analysis at Christianity Today. 

Next Part 3: Premillennialist arguing with postmillennialist