Steven Emmert on Secular Coalitions and Christian Nationalism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/01

Steven Emmert is the Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, engaging in discussions on the growing influence of Christian nationalism in American politics. He emphasizes the importance of separating religion from governance, analyzing movements like Senator Josh Hawley’s Christian nationalist rhetoric, and advocating for secularism amidst political and social challenges.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, Steven Emmert from the Secular Coalition for America joins us. Recently, Senator Josh Hawley presented an interesting framing of the current political moment. He represents a class of politicians who were once more on the fringe but have, in some ways, become more mainstream. Today, I’d like to focus not only on Senator Hawley but also on the broader concept of Christian nationalism in the context of the current election.

Why did Senator Hawley title his essay “The Christian Nationalism We Need”? How did he frame it as a positive idea? And what was the response from the Secular Coalition for America, particularly from you as the Executive Director?

Steven Emmert: First, Scott, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. I appreciate it.

Regarding why he titled his article as he did, I believe he is part of a growing group advocating that if we bring the Bible into more areas of public life, our problems will be solved. This group asserts that the issues we face as a country and society stem from the absence of Christ. This viewpoint was once more fringe but has become increasingly mainstream within one of our major political parties. This perspective has become a prominent talking point, particularly among their support base, which includes many evangelical Protestants who resonate with this message.

Jacobsen: It has become easier for figures like Hawley to make these claims, even though much needs to be more accurate. Politics often involves some distortion, but the myth of a Christian nation, a Christian founding, and Christian Founding Fathers is becoming more prevalent in public discourse and political rhetoric. Why is this happening now?

Emmert: Yes, that seems to be how they market and sell this narrative—by convincing people that the country was founded on Christian principles and is how it was supposed to be. In reality, Europeans who came here were largely fleeing religious persecution, which is why the United States became unique in its explicit separation of church and state. This distinction has been foundational to our country.

Jacobsen: There has also been rhetoric about the left “destroying” God. What have you heard about this all-powerful, all-knowing entity supposedly being destroyed by a political ideology?

Emmert: Yes, well, again, this is part of their marketing strategy. They must portray themselves as victims to rile up support, much like the so-called “War on Christmas” we used to hear about every December. I never quite understood that, but it worked for them in terms of gaining donations, votes, rally attendance, or however they sought power. Interestingly, their actions often seem far removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jacobsen: I was introduced to this idea by two chapter leaders of The Satanic Temple in Arizona, Stu de Haan and Michelle Shortt, who explained how this narrative is marketed.  But this conversation took place years ago. They essentially noted that if they don’t get what they want 100% of the time, they adopt a victim mentality, using it as political currency. A couple of things are happening here. There’s much hyperbole around terms like “woke,” with them portraying themselves as victims. This critique—though not always, but often in an everyday sense—is sent from the Christian nationalist, self-identified, side towards others. Yet they simultaneously see themselves as victims of left-wing political movements and social policy.

They frame this as an attack on their rights, such as freedom of speech, religious liberties, and so on, whether or not these claims are legitimate. It becomes a political sloganeering tool. On the academic side, in less colloquial terms, there can certainly be legitimate critiques of any social and political ideology. I wouldn’t exclude “wokeness” from that. I’m aware of academic critiques suggesting that if you are re-essentializing people, that can be problematic.

But about this idea of a “religion of the trans flag” or framing it as the crisis of our time, along with the claim that we’re in a spiritual battle and need spiritual warfare—these are all biblically and Abrahamically-oriented terminologies used to push a particular worldview onto the public. Do you think this is closely tied to the rapid and massive decline of Christianity in the United States?

Emmert: Absolutely. They’re seeing the writing on the wall. When you look at survey after survey of religious identification, especially among those with no religious affiliation—the “nones” (N-O-N-E-S)—you see that now around 30% of adults in America do not have any religious affiliation. This number has increased dramatically over the last 30 to 40 years. If you break it down by age group, among those under 40, that number is well over 50%. So, while America has historically been a majority Christian nation, it’s clear that this will not always be the case. They recognize this shift is coming and do everything they can to resist it.

Jacobsen: You can look at Canada as a comparative example. While the United States has more people, a more complicated social context, a longer history, and arguably, more fervent religiosity, Canada’s religious landscape is changing rapidly. Based on the lines of best fit, Canada will likely become less than half Christian either this year or sometime next year. Back in the 1970s, over 90% of Canadians identified as Christian. By 2001, that number had dropped to over 75%.

Emmert: Exactly. Right. Our countries have a huge parallel, even though the United States is still more religious. 

Jacobsen: We see that the U.S. is slowly moving towards where Britain is, while Canada is already further along regarding religious disaffiliation. In Canada, we identify as a constitutional monarchy—democratic in phrasing but still constitutional monarchy. We don’t often talk about being a Christian country, even though historically, much of Canada was built by and for Christians. This rhetoric, therefore, feels like a weird about-face or ad hoc response to the current political moment rather than something deeply rooted in the history of either country.

Jacobsen: So, how many Christians identify with the ideology of Christian nationalism? 

Emmert: I’ve seen various numbers, but I’m always curious about how people define Christian nationalism because that’s the crux of it, right? If people think, “Oh yes, we’re a Christian nation because we’ve always been a Christian nation, because most people go to a Christian church on Sunday,” that’s vastly different from what Christian nationalism is and what it aims to do to this country. While there is a significant portion of Christians who support the concept of Christian nationalism, I’m always skeptical of those actual numbers because they depend on how people define or interpret the term. However, one thing we do know is that among evangelical Protestants, support for Christian nationalism is close to 90%, and they make up a significant portion of our citizens, particularly our voters.

Jacobsen: When it comes to political violence, how do Christian nationalists with a right-wing authoritarian views align with approval of political violence? 

Emmert: January 6, 2021, clearly indicated that many are on board. In surveys I’ve read where the question is posed, “Do you feel violence is justified to keep our country ‘ours’?” it’s consistently evangelical Protestants who are more likely to support violence, secession, or any means necessary to preserve what they believe is “theirs,”whatever that might mean.

Jacobsen: What have you seen as effective in terms of activism? The Secular Coalition for America is comprised of a large number of organizations. I’m familiar with the names of all of them in the context of secularism in America. It’s impressive that you’ve brought them all together, especially given the challenges that can arise—whether it’s personality conflicts or differences in focus, with some groups preferring to be community-oriented rather than politically engaged. These complexities are part of any social and communal activist movement. So, what have you found effective in bringing everyone together and working toward a common cause?

Emmert: You hit the nail on the head. We focus on agreeing on 80-90% of things and set aside the remaining 10-20% to get to work. Otherwise, we all end up suffering. When the Secular Coalition for America was founded over 20 years ago by Herb Silverman and the late Woody Kaplan, it came from the recognition that the voice of atheists, agnostics, and secular groups was largely absent in Washington, DC. We didn’t have much of a presence at all. So, while there are some disagreements on that 10-20%, the activism that needs to take place here in our nation’s capital is something all of our organizations recognize we’re stronger together.

While some groups have since established their presence here in Washington, DC, we all agree that to represent our 21-member organizations best, we need a central group like the Secular Coalition for America to lead these advocacy efforts. One thing that impressed me this summer was our work to raise awareness about Project 2025. This is a playbook created to ensure that if a Republican candidate wins the presidency, there’s a roadmap for what they plan to do in the first 100 days and their goals for the rest of the term. We’ve seen growing attention and engagement as we’ve informed people about what this would look like. It highlights the potential dangers to our freedoms, rights, and constitution if we head down that path with another four-year term. Many public figures, particularly American public figures, deserve credit for engaging with these issues and countering some of the usual stereotypes.

Jacobsen: A lot of them are genuinely intelligent. I looked at Senator Hawley’s background—he has a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and a J.D. from Yale University. He’s an intelligent fellow. The bigger question is, what is sensible? Is it sensible to claim a Christian founding for this country and to push a nationalist version of that narrative in the present moment? It needs to be more sensible and factual. When you look at someone’s biography, like Hawley’s, there’s no apparent deficit of intelligence, qualifications, or ability to live a functional life. So, the next assumption is either they’re lying about American history for political purposes, or they’ve been misinformed or propagandized about it. Those seem like the two main possibilities. What do you think is going on with some of these folks?

Emmert: It’s about recognizing power, and they want to hold on to it. You can’t tell me that someone with a law degree from Harvard or Yale doesn’t understand the U.S. Constitution. It’s simple. So, they’re either lying through their teeth or received a very poor legal education, and I don’t think it’s the latter. They see this as what they must do to maintain their power and gain more.

Jacobsen: Do you foresee a risk of political violence in the upcoming election?

Emmert: I would like to think that after what we experienced four years ago, we’re past that. Still, we certainly need to plan for it as a possibility. We know that election officials in various counties have received numerous death threats that had to be taken seriously. Some people are currently in jail or prison for making those threats. So, the threat of violence is real, and it’s something we need to be prepared for, even though I’d like to believe we’re above that as a society. Unfortunately, I’ve been proven wrong.

Jacobsen: Also, according to Pew Research and other academic studies, secular people are one of the most disliked groups in the American public’s perception. They often arouse feelings of distrust and even hate. How do you sell a movement and yourself politically in such an environment? How do you overcome strong public opposition, especially when politics relies on personality, messaging, sloganeering, grassroots organizing, and so on?

Emmert: It’s important to recognize that change is a process. People don’t change their minds overnight. Let me use gay marriage as an example. When Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, it wasn’t widely approved. It wasn’t as strongly opposed as in places like Alabama, but most people were still against it. However, a year later, when they conducted another poll, most people supported it. People initially feared they would be required to marry someone of the same sex, but when they realized that wasn’t the case, they thought, “Oh, this doesn’t impact me at all.”

As other states went through the same process, the Republican Party focused heavily on opposing gay marriage in the 2004 election. Now, they hardly mention it. They’ve just found new “boogeymen” to scare people with, or at least attempt to. It’s up to us, as an organization and as citizens, to understand that change is a process. These shifts don’t happen overnight.

Look at the anti-abortion movement. They worked for 50 years before they achieved their goal. We need to be just as strategic and committed.

Jacobsen: Is there anything I need to clarify regarding the response to Hawley and the issue of political violence? What do you think?

Emmert: No, we’ve covered most of it. I got to mention Project 2025, which was important because it’s critical. If you agree, I’ve touched on everything I wanted.

Jacobsen: Yes, we’ve covered a lot. Thank you so much for your time today, Steve. I appreciate it.

Emmert: Thank you. I’ve enjoyed talking with you, and feel free to reach out again. We can chat after the election, too.

Jacobsen: Absolutely, I will. I’ll go through this process and send you the transcript for the whole thing.

Emmert: Sounds great. Thanks so much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Jacobsen: All right, thank you. You too. Goodbye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.