Legal and Constitutional

Review of White Christian Nationalism

Introduction

White Christian Nationalism (WCN) has emerged as a significant and contentious force within the American socio-political landscape. This ideology intertwines specific Christian beliefs with national identity and patriotism, posing profound questions about its compatibility and conflict with the United States Constitution. The judiciary plays a pivotal role in navigating these complex interactions. This white paper dissects these interactions, exploring how WCN aligns or conflicts with vital constitutional principles, focusing on the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection, and voting rights.

Establishment Clause and WCN

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a cornerstone of American constitutional law, aims to maintain a separation between church and state. This clause is rooted in the founders’ vision to prevent government endorsement of any religion, ensuring a pluralistic and inclusive society. Over the years, the Supreme Court has shaped its interpretation, evolving various tests like the Lemon and the endorsement tests to assess potential violations (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971).

WCN’s advocacy for a Christian-centric government and legal system challenges the very essence of the Establishment Clause. By seeking to enshrine Christian principles in law and policy, WCN threatens the constitutional mandate of religious neutrality. This poses a significant risk to religious pluralism and equality, as it would result in the government promoting Christianity over other faiths or non-religion.

Recent court cases have grappled with WCN and the Establishment Clause issues. In McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments displays in government buildings violated the Establishment Clause, affirming the unconstitutionality of government endorsement of religion. However, in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), the Court upheld the constitutionality of sectarian prayer at government meetings, demonstrating the ongoing challenges in navigating the boundaries of the Establishment Clause.

Free Exercise Clause and WCN

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to freely practice one’s religion. This right, however, is not absolute and faces limitations, particularly when it conflicts with public interest or infringes upon the rights of others. WCN’s interpretation of this clause often seeks extensive religious exemptions, potentially infringing upon the rights and freedoms of non-adherents.

The Supreme Court has developed standards for evaluating free exercise claims and balancing religious liberty with other constitutional rights and interests. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court ruled that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practices. This decision narrowed the scope of free exercise protections and religious exemptions.

However, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Court recognized free exercise rights for closely held corporations, allowing them to seek religious exemptions from laws conflicting with their beliefs. This decision has implications for balancing free exercise and other rights, such as access to healthcare and anti-discrimination protections.

WCN’s emphasis on the right to live out Christian beliefs in all spheres of life raises concerns about the potential infringement of the free exercise rights of non-Christians. The risk of WCN-inspired laws and policies favoring Christianity over other faiths could result in discrimination against religious minorities, undermining the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all.

Equal Protection and WCN

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is pivotal in safeguarding individuals from discriminatory practices by the state. This clause’s applicability extends to religious discrimination, ensuring that all individuals receive equal treatment under the law, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

WCN’s exclusionary vision of American identity, which promotes a white, Christian-centric view of citizenship, raises significant equal protection concerns. By marginalizing non-Christians and religious minorities, WCN threatens the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law. The potential for religious tests for public office or government services and unequal treatment based on religious affiliation violate the core principles of equal protection.

Court cases have addressed the intersection of religious discrimination and equal protection. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that laws targeting specific religious practices violate both the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, affirming the requirement of religious neutrality in government policies and regulations.

More recently, in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This decision highlights the potential conflict between religious liberty claims and LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections, as some WCN adherents may seek religious exemptions from such laws.

Voting Rights and WCN

The democratic integrity of the United States rests significantly on the sanctity of its voting rights. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) serves as a bulwark against racial and ethnic discrimination in voting. However, WCN’s potential influence on voting rights legislation raises serious constitutional concerns.

WCN-inspired voter suppression efforts often target minority communities, disproportionately impacting non-white and non-Christian voters. The use of religious rhetoric to justify restrictive voting laws, such as invoking religious principles to support voter ID requirements or limited voting hours, raises questions about the constitutionality of such measures.

Recent court cases have grappled with the VRA’s scope and enforcement. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated the VRA’s coverage formula for preclearance, significantly weakening the law’s ability to prevent discriminatory voting changes. This decision has raised concerns about the resurgence of voter suppression efforts, including those potentially motivated by WCN.

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), the Court further weakened the VRA by establishing a high standard for proving violations of Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race. This decision may encourage WCN-related voter suppression efforts and make it more difficult to challenge such practices in court.

Conclusion

White Christian Nationalism presents multifaceted legal and constitutional challenges, traversing various domains from religious freedom to equal protection and voting rights. Addressing these challenges necessitates a comprehensive approach involving rigorous judicial scrutiny and robust public discourse.

The courts are critical in interpreting and applying constitutional provisions to WCN-related issues. Robust judicial review is essential to ensure that laws, policies, and practices inspired by WCN do not violate constitutional rights and principles. At the same time, public education and awareness about WCN’s constitutional implications are crucial in safeguarding constitutional values.

This white paper provides a comprehensive overview of the legal and constitutional landscape surrounding WCN, analyzing key provisions and synthesizing relevant court cases across multiple constitutional domains. It offers insights into potential legal strategies for challenging WCN-inspired policies and practices, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches.

Moreover, it presents recommendations for safeguarding constitutional principles under WCN’s influence, emphasizing the need for proactive legal and policy measures and public education and mobilization efforts.

As White Christian Nationalism continues to shape the American socio-political landscape, it is imperative to remain vigilant in upholding the constitutional principles of religious freedom, equal protection, and voting rights. Only through a steadfast commitment to these values can we ensure a more inclusive, equitable, and democratic society for all.