Last week Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla appeared on MSNBC to warn about the scourge of Christian Nationalism. But as David pointed out at the time her definition of Christian Nationalism left a lot to be desired. In case you've forgotten, here's what she said.

Here @MSNBC helpfully makes it clear their disdain for Christians in America.

She says that if you believe that your rights come from God, you aren’t a Christian, you are a Christian nationalist.

Somehow they seem to not mention that our own founding documents make this… pic.twitter.com/WTLMqcqTzg

— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller_USMC) February 23, 2024

As everyone but Heidi Przybyla knows, the idea that our rights come from God is not a fringe position in America and is in fact part of our founding documents. Hence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

After embarrassing herself on TV, Przybyla spent some time trying to rehabilitate herself on Twitter:

which distinguishes this from other Christians who leave these God-given rights at our inherent right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- vs banning abortion, contraception etc.

— Heidi Przybyla 🌺 (@HeidiReports) February 23, 2024

Frankly this is still pretty bad. First of all, nothing in the Declaration says or suggests that god-given rights are limited to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  On the contrary, as my friend Jeryl Bier was quick to point out, the text says the opposite.

But the Declaration says "that among these" - it does not "leave these God-given rights" at three. Yes, clearly there will always be arguments about men interpreting what they think God means, but the country was founded on the idea that our rights come from the Creator. pic.twitter.com/lVPilbra7E

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) February 23, 2024

I don't think it could be any clearer that this was not intended to be an exhaustive list of god-given rights. It was merely meant to hit some of the highlights.

The other equally obvious problem here was her suggestion that abortion politics has no conceivable connection to the god-given right to life she has just mentioned. Here was my response.

Are you really not capable of seeing how the self-described "right to life" movement might see this issue as directly connected the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

— John Sexton (@verumserum) February 23, 2024

It was a rhetorical question because it was already obvious that the answer was no. In any case, Przybyla has a new piece up at Politico which is her attempt to take yet another bite of this particular apple. At least this time she admits that her televised definition of Christian Nationalism was a train wreck.

Due to some clumsy words, I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe. The confusion from my words was compounded when they were wrested from the full context of my appearance. Excerpts of what I said were promoted widely in some political circles by some activists whose primary objection, I feel sure, was not my television appearance but my coverage in POLITICO about the tactics and agenda of political activists who subscribe to a philosophy they call “Christian Nationalism.”

Christianity is a religion. Christian Nationalism is a political movement. As I said on air, there is a big difference between the two.

Reporters have a responsibility to use words and convey meaning with precision, and I am sorry I fell short of this in my appearance. Among the passages that caused confusion was my attempt to draw a distinction between Christians and the small set of these people who advocate Christian Nationalism. “The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists,” I told MSNBC host Michael Steele, “is that they believe our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any earthy authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God.”

To state the obvious, the above is not a good definition of Christian Nationalism. Many people have views about our rights as Americans that would coincide with those of many of our nation’s founders. In my full remarks, I noted that many other individuals and groups on all sides of the political equation have cited natural law, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who invoked the concept in his fight for civil rights. But, of course, the question of which policies and rights and values can be ascribed to natural law is in the eyes of the beholder.

She then goes on to cite the passage from the Declaration which everyone was pointing her toward last week. Unfortunately her attempt to come up with a better definition isn't very good. She argues that Christian Nationalists might try to blur the line between church and state and says they must be prepared to defend their views with argument when trying to influence laws. 

She's already let on in her tweets that her issue with Christian Nationalisms is their anti-abortion stance. But of course lots of people are pro-life and not just the small number who consider themselves Christian Nationalists. But I think asking her to admit there's a distinction here she's still glossing over is probably hoping for too much. She admitted her TV appearance was a mess and that's probably the best outcome we could have hoped for in this case.