The fight over Christian nationalism in a small Tennessee town

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c997j105941o

Ellie House and Mike Wendling Gainesboro, Tennessee
BBC/Ellie House A man on a hill looks at the camera, wearing jeans and boots, there are barns and rolling hills in the distance.BBC/Ellie House
Real estate developer Josh Abbotoy on the site of his planned future development outside Gainesboro. Abbotoy’s customers, including two self-described Christian nationalists, have caused controversy locally

As Josh Abbotoy gazes out at lush green woods and pastureland nestled among Tennessee’s Appalachian hills, he describes what he intends to build here: a neighbourhood with dozens of residential lots, centred around a working farm and, crucially, a church.

“A customer might very well buy and build roughly where we’re standing right now,” he says as we hike up to the top of a ridge.

Mr Abbotoy is founder of the real estate company Ridgerunner, which has bought land here and in neighbouring Kentucky. But his is no garden-variety housing development.

Mr Abbotoy is prominent in US conservative circles and describes his development as an “affinity-based community” – marketed to people not only interested in the peace and quiet of rural life, but in a constellation of right-wing ideals.

“Faith, family and freedom,” he says. “Those are the values that we try to celebrate.”

BBC/Mike Wendling A man, mostly outside the frame, points at a large map with sections parcelled out. Wooded areas and cleared areas are visible in shades of green.BBC/Mike Wendling
Josh Abbotoy points to a map of his development in the Ridgerunner offices in Gainesboro

Initially he didn’t attract much local attention after setting up shop in Jackson County.

But in late 2024, a local TV news report broadcast controversial statements made by two of Mr Abbotoy’s first, and most outspoken, customers: Andrew Isker, a pastor and author originally from Minnesota, and C Jay Engel, a businessman from California.

They are self-described “Christian nationalists” who question modern values, such as whether female suffrage and the civil rights movement were good ideas, and call for mass deportations of legal immigrants far in excess of President Donald Trump’s current plan. Another thing they sometimes say: “Repeal the 20th Century.”

The TV report raised an alarm bell amongst some local residents.

“You don’t know who these people are, or what they’re capable of,” says Nan Coons, a middle-aged woman who spoke in a firm southern accent during a recent interview near the town square in Gainesboro – of which this land is a part.

“And so it’s scary.”

Although Abbotoy himself does not identify as a Christian nationalist, he says concerns about his tenants are overblown.

The Ridgerunner development has since drawn national attention. And people in Gainesboro, home to around 900 people and one traffic light, have now found themselves in the middle of a dispute that is a proxy for much bigger political battles.

Podcasters move in

Mr Isker and Mr Engel announced their move to Gainesboro last year on their podcast Contra Mundum – Latin for “against the world”.

On their show, which is now recorded in a studio within Ridgerunner’s Gainesboro office, they have encouraged their fans to move into small communities, seek local influence, and join them in their fight to put strict conservative Christian values at the heart of American governance.

“If you could build places where you can take political power,” Mr Isker said on one episode, “which might mean sitting on the [board of] county commissioners, or even having the ear of the county commissioners and sheriff… being able to do those things is extremely, extremely valuable.”

Contra Mundum Two men sit in front of microphones and computers, with patriotic artwork behind them, including a copy of a famous painting of George Washington during the US Revolutionary War and former presidents Richard Nixon and James PolkContra Mundum
C Jay Engel (l) and Andrew Isker (r) shown during an episode of their podcast

On X, Mr Engel has popularised the idea of “heritage Americans” – a fuzzy concept but one that applies mainly to Anglo-Protestants whose ancestors arrived in the US at least a century ago. He says it is not explicitly white, but it does have “strong ethnic correlations”.

He’s called for mass deportations of immigrants – including legal ones – writing: “Peoples like Indians, or South East Asians or Ecuadorians or immigrated Africans are the least capable of fitting in and should be sent home immediately.”

In their broadcasts and writings they have also expressed anti-gay sentiments. The podcasters deny they are white nationalists.

Both are Ridgerunner customers, and Mr Isker’s church will move into the community’s chapel when it’s complete.

The ‘resistance’

Their hardcore views have alarmed residents, with some locals setting up an informal resistance group.

“I believe that they have been attempting to brand our town and our county as a headquarters for their ideology of Christian nationalism,” says town matriarch Diana Mandli, a prominent local businesswoman who until recently owned a pub on Gainesboro’s central square

Late last year, Mandli led the charge by writing a message on a chalkboard outside her business: “If you are a person or group who promotes the inferiority or oppression of others, please eat somewhere else.”

BBC/Mike Wendling A sign with a sunflower motif which reads: "Gainesboro: you belong here"BBC/Mike Wendling

More signs opposed to the new development followed. When people caught wind that the Ridgerunner guys were holding a meeting at a nearby fast food joint, dozens turned up to confront them.

Ms Coons, whose ancestors have lived in Gainesboro since around the time of the US Revolutionary War, says she engaged Mr Engel in conversation.

“He explained to me that what they’re promoting is what he called ‘family voting’… one vote per family, and of course, the husband in that family would be the one voting” with women frozen out of the electorate.

Mr Engel has since said publicly that it’s not “wrong” for women to vote, although he does support the idea of household suffrage.

BBC/Mike Wendling A billboard in front of a road which reads: "Small town, big heart, here nasty notions play no part. Gainesboro - where all are welcome."BBC/Mike Wendling
Local residents put up a billboard outside of town

In a county that voted 80% for Donald Trump in the last election, Ms Coons is used to living next door to neighbours with conservative views.

But she and others came away from the protest convinced more than ever that the beliefs of their new neighbours were too extreme.

They say they don’t want to run them out of town, but intend to sound the alarm about what they say are extreme views, as well as thwart any future attempt to take over the local government.

“This is where we have to draw the line,” Ms Coons says.

What is Christian nationalism?

Christian nationalism is a nebulous worldview without a single coherent definition.

At the extreme end, as outlined by theorists including author Stephen Wolfe, Christian nationalists advocate for rule by a “Christian prince” – an all-powerful religious dictator, who reigns over the civil authorities and leads his subjects to “godliness”.

Less extreme versions take the form of calls for Christian law to be explicitly enshrined in American legal codes, for religious leaders to get heavily involved in politics, or simply for an acknowledgement of the Christian background of America’s founding fathers.

This multiplicity of definitions has created a strategic ambiguity that experts say has helped Christian nationalism seep into the mainstream.

Big ideas or far-right plan?

Mr Abbotoy’s development is still in the early stages – his company is building roads and organising sanitation infrastructure. When the BBC visited in November, workers were busy knocking down a decrepit old barn, one of many that dot the Appalachian landscape.

But business is brisk. Around half of the lots are already under contract. Mr Abbotoy anticipates that the first houses will be built and new customers will begin moving in at the beginning of 2027.

BBC/Ellie House A barn sits among clumps of trees and rolling hillsBBC/Ellie House
Building on the Brewington Farms site will start within months, with new residents moving in soon, in just over a year

Many of his customers, he says, are moving to heavily Republican Tennessee from Democratic-majority states like California and New York.

“People want to live in communities where they feel like they share important values with their neighbours,” he says.

Mr Abbotoy says he doesn’t call himself a Christian nationalist, but describes the criticism of his customers as “absurd” and says they have no intention to try to take over local government.

“They’re talking about big ideas and books,” he says. As for some of their more controversial views, he insists that “rolling back the 20th Century can mean a lot of things. A lot of conservatives would say we took a lot of wrong turns.”

Mr Isker and Mr Engel did not respond to multiple requests for comment and a list of questions.

BBC/Ellie House A woman with grey hair and wearing a purple sweater stands in front of a row of shops in the main square in GainesboroBBC/Ellie House
Nan Coons belongs to an informal group of Gainesboro residents who are alarmed at their new Christian nationalist neighbours

Small-town fight goes nationwide

The fight here in Gainesboro has drawn in players far from small-town Tennessee.

Mr Abbotoy, who was educated at Harvard Law School, is also a partner at a conservative venture capital fund, New Founding, and a founder of the American Reformer, a website that has published the writings of a number of other prominent Christian nationalists.

His opponents meanwhile have received research assistance and advice from a national organisation, States at the Core, established last year to tackle authoritarianism in small communities. It is funded by a constellation of left-wing organisations. States at the Core declined our request for an interview.

The men of Ridgerunner have pointed to the organisation as evidence that the pushback against their project has been orchestrated by powerful liberals. The locals say this is ridiculous.

“Nobody’s cut me a cheque to say anything,” Ms Coons says.

In Gainesboro, people on all sides see a much bigger story – one of large-scale political fights playing out in rural America.

Republicans have made huge gains in rural areas this century, and in 2024 Trump stretched his lead in rural communities, winning 69% of the vote. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently announced a reported eight-figure investment ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a chunk of which will be dedicated to winning rural voters.

“There’s definitely a renewed, [Democratic Party] focus on rural engagement,” Mr Abbotoy says. “And at the same time, there’s been a wave of people moving to small town America precisely because they like the Bible Belt, they like the conservative traditional culture.”

But Nan Coons and her allies say they aren’t ready to concede rural areas like her hometown to Christian nationalists.

“If we are going to turn this tide, it starts on your street, it starts in your neighbourhood, it starts in your small town,” she says.

“I have to stand for something, and this is where I stand.”

 

The 2025 LGBTQ Year in Review: Lows, More Lows and Rumblings of Hope

https://www.unclosetedmedia.com/p/the-2025-lgbtq-year-in-review-lows

Here are Uncloseted Media’s picks for the most newsworthy moments for the LGBTQ community this year.

James Uthmeier recounts successes to Moms for Liberty

James Uthmeier recounts successes to Moms for Liberty

‘Our first priority must always be protecting our kids.’

Attorney General James Uthmeier had a lot to celebrate in his speech at the Moms for Liberty Joyful Warriors Summit.

Uthmeier focused on how he’s working to ensure that concerned parents can continue their “movement … based on faith, based on family, ensuring that we have the freedom to raise our kids in God’s image.”

“I’m about eight months on the job now as Attorney General, and as I tell my team every day, our No. 1 priority is, and will always be, protecting our kids. There’s a lot of evil out there. There’s a lot of evil, a lot of danger. There will always be crime, no matter how much we fight it. But our first priority must always be protecting our kids,” he said to applause.

Uthmeier went on to describe his Office’s legal actions against Target for its “transgender children’s clothing line” with “bras for little boys, some tuckable underwear.”

“Gross. Absolutely disgusting,” he said. “We’re going to hit them in their wallets.”

He also took aim at Snapchat in his remarks.

“Predators are all over that app, all the apps, but that one in particular. It’s their preferred vehicle to go after kids,” Uthmeier said.

“And they’re crafty, they’re smart, they’re patient. They’ll use fake pictures. They’ll talk in a dialect. They’ll get your kids to, you know, drop their guard. They’ll tap into their insecurities, and they’re willing to spend weeks or months to develop a relationship before they start soliciting information, soliciting photos, soliciting locations. And since we’ve sued them, we’ve made dozens of arrests of child predators that have gone after kids through this app.”

Uthmeier also described how his Office is able to enforce the law, including by serving as a “law firm for parents out there” who might be concerned by what school districts do.

“If you’re identifying one of these wrongs that’s violating your rights and that’s subjecting our kids to danger and evil, then we want to know about it, and we’re going to bring the heat in court to shut it down.”

The AG also quipped about a recent call to people to report their exes for immigration violations, noting one gender predominantly was dropping the dime on the other.

“Y’all ladies are savage, I’ve got to tell you. These calls come in and these ladies, I mean, they’ve got date of birth, nickname, frequented bars. I mean, all the details. So to the handful of men out there, treat your women right or they will absolutely get you.”

 

Florida Attorney General declares war on “A Drag Queen Christmas” show

 

Teaching tolerance isn’t indoctrination. It’s protection

https://www.advocate.com/voices/mahmoud-v-taylor

Mahmoud v Taylor LGBTQ rights protesters with signs outside US Supreme Court building washington DC April 2025

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Protesters in support of LGBTQ+ rights and against book bans demonstrate outside of the U.S. Supreme Court Building while the justices heard arguments for the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor in Washington, DC., April 2025

Opinion: In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the justices gave bigotry a permission slip and ruled that parents can “opt out” of LGBTQ-inclusive lessons, further diminishing lessons and practices on inclusivity in civic society, argues Darek M. Ciszek.

The U.S. Supreme Court made a decision earlier this summer that has a significant impact on classrooms nationwide. In their 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the majority completely missed the point as to why LGBTQ-inclusive education matters. By giving parents the option to pull their kids out of lessons that include LGBTQ+ characters or content, the Court prioritized personal religious objections over creating schools where students can learn without feeling invisible.

Justice Alito‘s majority opinion is especially troubling. He treats LGBTQ-inclusive education as if it were some optional “add-on” that schools can easily work around. As a former teacher, I can confidently say that is not how education works, especially when it comes to curriculum and lesson planning. And while Justice Thomas calls LGBTQ-inclusive education “ideological conformity,” he fails to see that most LGBTQ+ adults today grew up in a school system that forced us to conform to a cisgender and straight worldview. Ironically, I’d consider the Court’s narrow view of public education to be ideologically driven.

 

 

Let’s be clear about what LGBTQ-inclusive education is and isn’t. When teachers include books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in their curriculum, they are not trying to convert anyone’s child or attack anyone’s faith. They are trying to show students that families come in all colors, shapes, and sizes, reflecting our diverse society.

LGBTQ+ people are also part of every community. We have always been a part of human history, and we deserve to be represented in our nation’s schools. The goal is not to change what students believe at home; it is to teach them how to be respectful in a democratic and diverse world. Luckily, in her dissent, Justice Sotomayor got it right when she said that LGBTQ-inclusive education is “designed to foster mutual civility and respect.”

I could not agree more.

 

 

But here’s what the Court’s majority really got wrong: they ignored the anti-bullying efforts that motivate many LGBTQ+ inclusive education programs in the first place. According to the latest National School Climate Survey from GLSEN, 68% of American students reported feeling unsafe in school due to their SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression) characteristics.

That is two out of three LGBTQ+ youth.

These aren’t just statistics. These are real children trying to learn while dealing with a school environment that tells them, whether implicitly or explicitly, that their identities or families are somehow wrong or shameful.

When schools include diverse families in their lessons, they are not pushing an agenda. They are teaching kids that being different does not mean bad. They are giving LGBTQ+ students a chance to see themselves reflected in their education and helping other students see and understand those who are different from them.

 

 

Research shows inclusive education works. Studies have found that an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum can improve the social and emotional well-being of LGBTQ+ youth. When kids learn about different types of families early on, they are more likely to treat their classmates with kindness instead of cruelty. In other words, when implemented correctly, LGBTQ-inclusive education can be an essential anti-bullying and student well-being strategy.

 

 

For instance, as a result of my doctoral research, I have learned that some schools around the world are starting to address LGBTQ+ bullying head-on, and, not surprisingly, it’s through curriculum and instruction. In Scotland, LGBTQ-inclusive education became required in 2021 across both primary and secondary, and most major subject areas. When I interviewed government staff about their experience implementing the new policy, I learned that they even worked with religious groups to inform the effort. Faith communities could agree that inclusion was important for reducing homophobic bullying, even if they had some religious concerns. Scottish students now learn how homophobic language hurts people and develop the social-emotional skills needed for creating safer schools. It’s not ideological instruction; it’s teaching kids critical peer relationship skills.

Similar to the Scottish experience, the U.S. Supreme Court could have left the door open for education authorities to find a balance that respects both religious families and vulnerable LGBTQ+ kids. Real inclusion programs do not ask anyone to abandon their faith. They ask people to treat others with respect and dignity, a lesson I believe everyone should support in class. Kids can learn that some families have two moms without being told their family is wrong. They can remember that using “gay” as an insult hurts people without abandoning their religious beliefs. Getting to know your neighbor does not go against faith.

 

 

Unfortunately for the U.S., the impact of the Court’s decision may be severe and widespread, especially in ideologically conservative states. Instead of dealing with complicated opt-out policies, I fear many school districts will probably remove LGBTQ+ inclusive materials entirely. Unfortunately, it can be easier to bow to political pressures than to fight, especially when faced with potential lawsuits or a loss of school funding. This means LGBTQ+ kids lose representation, and all students miss out on critical lessons in diversity and inclusion.

The Court’s decision also has broader implications beyond the LGBTQ+ community. By way of a new precedent, the case approves a heckler’s veto, allowing parents to claim a religious objection to any educational content they may not align with at home. This is because the majority opinion wasn’t apparent on how opting out of inclusive education would work in practice, or what would even qualify as a personal religious objection. We might start seeing opt-out forms for instruction on topics like human evolution, women’s rights, or civil rights history. Thanks to the Court, there is no line in the sand.

 

 

 

When we remove students from lessons about diverse communities, we fail everyone. But the call for truly inclusive education is not going anywhere. Our kids—all of our kids—deserve better.

Darek M. Ciszek is a PhD Candidate in Education at UCLA with a research focus on curriculum, learning, and social development.

Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.

My Boyfriend Founded Uncloseted Media. It’s What I Needed as a Kid

Growing up as someone who is different from the majority is difficult no matter the circumstances.  For the LGBTQ+ it is horrific when just your very existence is called an abomination and you are equated with the worst being in history.  Especially when your parents and your god are pushing the idea that you are a monster who can only be cured if you follow their god, their church doctrines, have their feelings about everything in your life.  Hugs.  


https://www.unclosetedmedia.com/p/my-boyfriend-founded-uncloseted-media

At 40 years old, I am still shedding an upbringing of religious trauma. But today, I feel free.

Robin Abcarian: Should therapists be allowed to tell gay kids God wants them to be straight?

https://www.arcamax.com/politics/opeds/s-3886919

 

Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times on Published in Op Eds

I had a difficult time reading the gut-wrenching accounts from the parents of gay children who are part of the Supreme Court case about conversion therapy bans and freedom of speech.

All claim their family relationships were seriously damaged by the widely discredited practice, and that their children were permanently scarred or even driven to suicide.

The case, Chiles vs. Salazar, arose from a 2019 Colorado law that outlaws conversion therapy, whose practitioners say they can change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms. The therapy is considered harmful and ineffective by mainstream medical and mental health organizations.

At least two dozen other states have similar laws on the books, all of them good-faith attempts to prevent the lasting harm that can result when a young person is told not just that they can change who they are, but that they should change because God wants them to. The laws were inspired by the horrific experiences of gay and transgender youths whose families and churches tried to change them.

The case was brought by Kayley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who believes, according to her attorneys, that “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”

Colorado, incidentally, has never charged Chiles or anyone else in connection with the 2019 law.

Chiles is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm known for its challenges to gay and transgender rights, including one brought to the Supreme Court in 2023 by Christian web designer Lorie Smith, who did not want to be forced to create a site for a gay wedding, even though no gay couple had ever approached her to do so. The Court’s conservative majority ruled in Smith’s favor. All three liberals dissented.

As for conversion therapy, counselors often encourage clients to blame their LGBTQ+ identities on trauma, abuse or their dysfunctional families. (If it can be changed, it can’t possibly be innate, right?)

In oral arguments, it appeared the conservative justices were inclined to accept Chiles’ claim that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy amounts to viewpoint discrimination, a violation of the 1st Amendment’s free speech guarantees. The liberal minority was more skeptical.

But proponents of the bans say there is a big difference between speech and conduct. They argue that a therapist’s attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity amounts to conduct, and can rightfully be regulated by states, which, after all, lawfully impose conditions on all sorts of licensed professionals. (The bans, by the way, do not apply to ministers or unlicensed practitioners, and are generally not applicable to adults.)

Each competing brief whipsawed my emotions. The 1st Amendment is sacred in so many ways, and yet states have a critical interest in protecting the health and welfare of children. How to find a balance?

After reading the brief submitted by a group of 1st Amendment scholars, I was convinced the Colorado law should be ruled unconstitutional. As they wrote of Chiles, she doesn’t hook her clients to electrodes or give them hormones, as some practitioners of conversion therapy have done in the past. “The only thing she does is talk, and listen.”

Then I turned to the parents’ briefs.

 

Linda Robertson, an evangelical Christian mother of four, wrote that she was terrified when her 12-year-old son Ryan confided to her in 2001 that he was gay. “Crippling fear consumed me — it stole both my appetite and my sleep. My beautiful boy was in danger and I had to do everything possible to save him.”

Robertson’s search led her to “therapists, authors and entire organizations dedicated to helping kids like Ryan resist temptation and instead become who God intended them to be.”

Ryan was angry at first, then realized, his mother wrote, that “he didn’t want to end up in hell, or be disapproved of by his parents and his church family.” Their quest to make Ryan straight led them to “fervent prayer, scripture memorization, adjustments in our parenting strategies, conversion therapy based books, audio and video recordings and live conferences with titles like, ‘You Don’t Have to be Gay’ and ‘How to Prevent Homosexuality.’ ”

They also attended a conference put on by Exodus International, the “ex-gay” group that folded in 2013 after its former founder repudiated the group’s mission and proclaimed that gay people are loved by God.

After six years, Ryan was in despair. “He still didn’t feel attracted to girls; all he felt was completely alone, abandoned and needed the pain to stop,” his mother wrote. Worse, he felt that God would never accept him or love him. Ryan died at age 20 of a drug overdose after multiple suicide attempts.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense or compassion knows, such “therapy” is a recipe for shame, anguish and failure.

Yes, there are kids who question their sexuality, their gender identity or both, and they deserve to discuss their internal conflicts with competent mental health professionals. I can easily imagine a scenario where a teenager tells a therapist they think they’re gay or trans but don’t want to be.

The job of a therapist is to guide them through their confusion to self-acceptance, not tell them what the Bible says they should be.

If recent rulings are any guide, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the Colorado conversion therapy ban.

This would mean, in essence, that a therapist has the right to inflict harm on a struggling child in the name of free speech.

_____

Why do Christians need to force their belief onto others?

Trump’s Cult And Christian America

in

Misuse of religion by a Christian nationalist.