Surveillance cameras showed a man walk up to the building soon after 4 a.m. on April 8 wearing a face covering, tactical vest and gloves, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI. The man then ignited an improvised explosive device, threw it at the main entrance then ran away. The bomb partially detonated, resulting in some minor fire damage, authorities said.

FTA:

The bottom line is that Christian nationalism takes on different forms, and despite organizational or even ideological differences, ideas can penetrate the often porous borders between different camps. Someone who receives the daily email blast from the Family Research Council might also be drawn to Wolfe’s book, for example. On a more unnerving, macro level, major right-wing and GOP figures, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and the CEO of the Daily Wire, the podcast consortium run by conservative influencer Ben Shapiro, have embraced the rabidly antisemitic, Hitler-admiring antagonist Nick Fuentes, who is Catholic but also is accurately described as a Christian nationalist. The increasingly influential Catholic integralist movement, which seeks a Catholic-inflected replacement for the “liberal order,” is yet another unique form of Christian nationalism.

...In 2022, Stephen Wolfe (no relation to William) published a book called “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” The book was published by Canon Press, a publishing house that began as a ministry of Wilson’s church. Stephen K. Bannon, the Trump adviser, reportedly had a copy of the book stacked on his table.

In the book, Wolfe lays out a vision that veers very far into the fantastic — he rails against the advancement of women over the past several decades by using the term “gynocracy,” and describes both the Obergefell decision and the 1965 immigration reform which abolished quotas on national origin as an “imperial imposition.” One chapter, called “The Christian Prince,” advocates for a “measured and theocratic caesarism.” Wolfe has suggested that he’s playing a somewhat coy game here, using “prince” to refer not necessarily to a monarch, but possibly to the aggregate form of American governmental power. Whatever it is, in his version of Christian nationalism the prince would promote “national self-love and a manly, moral liberty.”

Pity the poor unseen majority who shove their religion in our faces every day. Won't someone think of them?

It's easy to roll one's eyes as the self-serving dramatics of MAGA voters using false claims of victimhood as cover for their ugly views. But, as the threatening language in Greene's tweet shows, this "woe is us" act is deeply dangerous. The hyperbolic conspiracy theories and dehumanizing language serve to convince Republican voters that religious liberty and democracy are simply values they can no longer afford to hold. The message is Christians are so "under siege" that the only way to fight back is by stripping everyone else of basic rights.

They have money, they have influence, they have charisma, and they have technical expertise. And they're using to pursue a theocratic America, even if they have to kill anyone who gets in their way.

Could Trump's attempt to pander to evangelicals backfire? We can only hope.

Minor nitpick: it was time to start worrying about Christian nationalism over twenty years ago. They've been trying to legitimize Christian nationalism since at least the founding of the "Moral Majority" when I was a boy. I've been trying to sound the alarm about Dominionism and Christian nationalism since the second Bush administration.

But if you're late to the game, fine. The second best time to start worrying about Christian nationalism is now.

A deep dive into the policies proposed in Project 2025 reveal the theocratic intent of its framers. Using language that evangelicals will recognize to hide its authoritarian intent demonstrates they recognize how unpopular these policies will be once implemented. But then it'll be too late.

These are the people tasked with developing policy for a second Trump administration. If you're not deeply scared of what they're proposing, you are not paying attention.

The worst part isn't even that they're trying to do this. Of course they've been wanting to do this ever since they started losing power during the Enlightenment. The worst part is that the average American either doesn't know about this, or has somehow talked themselves into believing it's not a real threat. We're watching the scene play out in which the man says, "of course the leopards won't eat my face!"