cultural disaffections<\/a> with the contemporary left and the Democratic Party as their fellow-travelers on the Christian right.<\/p>\nAll said, then, there is a sense in which the term \u201cChristian Nationalism\u201d has come to be used to broadly \u2013 referring in many circles to almost anything the contemporary left doesn\u2019t like that Christians happen to do. At the same time, the term seems too narrow: A tight focus on Christian <\/em>nationalism, and especially white <\/em>Christian nationalism cannot well-account for the growing religious nationalist movements among contemporary U.S. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other believers (and even some non-believers who nonetheless<\/a> advocate<\/a> for religious nationalism).<\/p>\nTo get around this latter problem, historian Sam Haselby has argued<\/a> that the more inclusive term \u201creligious right\u201d is perhaps a better framework for understanding contemporary trends than Christian nationalism. To get around the former problem, journalists and scholars should stop using Christian nationalism as a shorthand for any right-aligned politics we find unpleasant or threatening, and discuss the Christian nationalism, its historical legacy and contemporary influence in more precise and nuanced ways.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n