By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Under Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the department has seen a shift from science-based public health to rhetoric emphasizing “spiritual malaise” and “spiritual warfare” against perceived “malevolent forces.” This ideological pivot, intertwined with Christian nationalist aims, has led to significant job cuts within HHS and the promotion of pseudoscientific remedies. The administration’s actions, including sowing doubt about vaccines and reducing research funding, are dismantling public health institutions and creating vacuums that benefit personal wellness ventures, while health inequities are exacerbated and scientific consensus is eroded.
Read the original article here
The phrase “Christofascism” is not just a provocative label; it appears to be a descriptor for a deeply concerning trend unfolding within the United States, one that is actively undermining public health. This isn’t an overnight phenomenon, but rather a slow, insidious demolition, chipping away at the foundations of communal well-being. The core of this issue seems to stem from a specific ideological bent that prioritizes religious doctrine over scientific consensus and humanistic care, particularly for those in need.
There’s a disturbing narrative emerging where the government’s role in providing a social safety net, including vital public health services, is actively resisted by certain factions. The argument, as articulated by some, is that people should turn to religious institutions for aid, not the state. This isn’t necessarily about a genuine desire to bolster faith-based charity; rather, it appears to be a strategic move to gain leverage. The implication is that if individuals are dependent on churches for essential support, then the tenets of that religion can be enforced upon them, making adherence a prerequisite for survival. This mindset suggests a desire to control, not to heal, and it directly impacts public health by creating barriers to care and fostering an environment where well-being is conditional.
This mentality also seems to extend to a belief that one’s health and mental state are directly tied to their level of religious devotion, or rather, their adherence to a particular interpretation of faith. Those who fall outside these rigid parameters are implicitly, or perhaps explicitly, deemed less worthy of health or support. This is a dangerous proposition, as it creates a tiered system of care based on religious affiliation rather than human need. When public health initiatives are framed through this lens, they become instruments of coercion and judgment, rather than tools for collective betterment. The very idea that one’s health is a reflection of their piety is a deeply flawed and harmful notion that has no place in a modern, equitable society.
The historical parallels drawn are stark and serve as a chilling warning. The Confederacy, with its constitution explicitly referencing God, and the rise of the Nazis, who were aided by Christian Nationalism, are potent examples. The Franco dictatorship in Spain, responsible for immense bloodshed, is another instance of a Catholic Christian Nationalist state. These are not isolated incidents but rather historical patterns where the fusion of religious extremism and state power has led to oppression and immense suffering. When this ideology seeps into public health policy, it morphs from a concern for spiritual well-being into a mechanism for social control and the erosion of fundamental human rights.
The notion that some adherents of Christianity today appear indifferent to the plight of the poor or even seem to wish for society to be unhealthy is a profound betrayal of many of the core teachings often associated with Jesus. It’s a stark contrast to the idea of compassion and care for the marginalized. This selective application of religious principles, where Old Testament laws are advocated for government enforcement while New Testament teachings about love and charity are conveniently ignored, highlights a deeply hypocritical approach. This ideology seems to be less about genuine faith and more about wielding religious symbols as a tool for political and social power, particularly to oppress.
Furthermore, the erosion of public services extends beyond healthcare. Public education, scientific research, and the preservation of public spaces are all targets. The underlying principle appears to be: if it benefits the public broadly, then it must be dismantled. This anti-communal, anti-progress sentiment is fueled by a desire to break down existing structures and replace them with something else, something more aligned with this specific religious and political agenda. The rise of entities like Christian “Health Share” ministries, which operate outside of traditional insurance regulations and HIPAA protections, exemplifies this. These organizations can present themselves as alternatives but may pose significant risks, potentially exploiting personal information and operating on unreliable payment models, mirroring Ponzi schemes.
The accelerationist mindset, where some seem to actively desire societal collapse, believing it will bring about a divine or apocalyptic event, is particularly terrifying in the context of public health. There’s a chilling belief that accelerating negative situations will lead to more opportunities for recruitment into their fold. This is a nihilistic approach that prioritizes an abstract, often apocalyptic, future over the immediate well-being of people in the present. The idea is not to build or heal, but to break down, with the hope that something, or someone, will then be “saved” in a post-collapse scenario. This worldview actively undermines any efforts to mitigate suffering or build resilience.
The impact of this ideology on individuals facing health challenges, particularly chronic conditions, is devastating. For someone with a condition like epilepsy, the future becomes a source of profound anxiety. If access to medication, medical research, and public health infrastructure is under attack, and if one’s health is judged by their adherence to a particular religious dogma, then their future becomes precarious. This is not just an abstract political debate; it has very real, life-altering consequences for vulnerable populations. The very systems that could provide care and stability are being deliberately weakened.
Ultimately, the phrase “Christofascism” points to a convergence of religious fundamentalism, authoritarian political ambition, and a profound disregard for democratic institutions and human welfare. When this ideology influences public health, it transforms a vital sector of societal support into an instrument of control, judgment, and neglect. The slow demolition of US public health is not just an attack on institutions; it is an attack on the fundamental principle that every human life has inherent value and deserves access to care, regardless of belief, status, or adherence to any particular doctrine. The pursuit of power, cloaked in religious fervor, is leaving public health in a state of perilous decline.