Against the Use of “Deus Vult” in Modern America: A British Perspective on Theocratic Threats to Democracy
As a British woman observing American politics, I am deeply struck by the resurgence of the phrase “Deus vult”—Latin for “God wills it”—in certain corners of the United States. This cry, once the rallying call of the medieval Crusades, carries a legacy of religious violence and domination. Today, it is being repurposed by elements of America’s far-right Christian nationalist movement, often championed by figures such as Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and vocal proponent of framing the U.S. as a Christian nation.
While America’s founding principles are rooted in the ideals of religious liberty and the separation of church and state, the rise of theocratic rhetoric like “Deus vult” raises alarm bells, particularly for those of us in the UK who have witnessed the consequences of centuries of religious conflict. This phrase, with its militant and exclusionary overtones, symbolizes a broader push toward transforming America into a theocracy—an idea that fundamentally undermines democracy, diversity, and freedom.
The Historical Weight of “Deus Vult”
To understand the gravity of “Deus vult,” one must look back to its origins. This phrase became synonymous with the First Crusade, proclaimed by Pope Urban II in 1095 as a holy war against Muslim-controlled territories. It justified unimaginable violence, targeting not only Muslims but also Jews and even fellow Christians who were deemed heretical. The phrase embodied the fusion of political power and religious zeal, with devastating consequences for those outside the dominant faith.
As a Briton, this history resonates deeply. The UK has its own legacy of religious conflict, from the bloody Crusades to the Protestant-Catholic divides that fueled centuries of war and oppression. These lessons taught us the dangers of intertwining governance with religious dogma. In modern America, however, the revival of “Deus vult” as a cultural and political slogan threatens to roll back hard-won progress toward secularism and pluralism.
Christian Nationalism and Pete Hegseth’s Role
In the contemporary United States, “Deus vult” has been adopted by factions of the far right as a rallying cry for Christian nationalism. This movement, which seeks to align American identity and policy with conservative Christian values, often trades on themes of exclusion and cultural supremacy. While Pete Hegseth may not use the phrase explicitly, his rhetoric frequently echoes its underlying sentiment. As a media personality and author of American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, Hegseth has positioned himself as a leading voice in the push to reframe America as a Christian nation under siege.
Hegseth’s arguments often centre on the idea that America is drifting away from its “Judeo-Christian values.” By framing this as a cultural war, he implicitly endorses a worldview in which Christianity—and a particular interpretation of it—becomes the foundation of American governance. This rhetoric mirrors the exclusivity of “Deus vult” by suggesting that divine will, rather than democratic consensus, should guide public policy.
From the perspective of someone in the UK, where secularism underpins governance despite a state church, Hegseth’s vision is deeply troubling. It risks alienating millions of Americans who do not share his beliefs, including non-Christians, progressive Christians, and the growing population of non-religious citizens. Such a trajectory undermines the inclusivity that modern democracies should aspire to.
Theocratic Aspirations vs. Secular Governance
The adoption of “Deus vult” in modern America is not merely symbolic; it carries real political implications. Theocratic governance—where laws and policies are dictated by religious authority—is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. A government ruled by divine will cannot accommodate dissenting voices, religious minorities, or secular perspectives. It undermines the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people, replacing them with the whims of those who claim to interpret God’s will.
In Britain, the separation of religion and state has been essential to fostering peace and coexistence in a country once rife with sectarian strife. Though the Church of England still exists, its influence on policy has waned significantly, and British society thrives on its religious diversity. For Americans to embrace the rhetoric of “Deus vult” would be to reject this hard-earned lesson. It risks reducing democracy to a tool for enforcing religious conformity.
The Dangers of Exclusionary Rhetoric
What alarms me most about the rhetoric surrounding “Deus vult” and Hegseth’s Christian nationalism is its divisive and exclusionary nature. America prides itself on being a melting pot of cultures, faiths, and beliefs. Yet, this push for theocratic governance threatens to fracture that unity by marginalizing anyone who does not conform to a narrow interpretation of Christianity.
• Marginalizing Religious Minorities: The imposition of a Christian nationalist agenda inevitably alienates non-Christian communities, including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. It sends a clear message that their values and identities are secondary, if not outright unwelcome.
• Limiting Individual Freedoms: Theocratic rhetoric often leads to the restriction of personal freedoms. From limiting reproductive rights to opposing LGBTQ+ equality, policies justified by religious doctrine frequently infringe on the autonomy of individuals.
• Eroding Trust in Public Institutions: By injecting religious ideology into governance, institutions like schools, courts, and healthcare systems risk losing their credibility as neutral arbiters serving all citizens equally.
These outcomes would not only harm America’s most vulnerable populations but also tarnish its reputation as a global beacon of democracy and freedom.
Lessons from the British Experience
The United States has long prided itself on its separation of church and state—a principle enshrined in its Constitution. As a Briton, I cannot help but reflect on the parallels with our own history. The UK endured centuries of religiously motivated violence, from the persecution of Catholics under Protestant monarchs to the sectarian conflicts in Northern Ireland. These painful chapters taught us that no faith should dominate public life. While the Church of England remains the state religion, its role is largely ceremonial, and Britain’s governance is firmly rooted in secular principles.
This evolution toward secularism has allowed Britain to flourish as a pluralistic society, where people of all faiths—and none—can coexist. America, with its incredible diversity, has even more to lose by embracing the divisive rhetoric of “Deus vult” and the Christian nationalist agenda promoted by figures like Pete Hegseth. By clinging to theocratic aspirations, the U.S. risks undoing centuries of progress.
Conclusion
The resurgence of “Deus vult” in America represents more than a historical curiosity; it is a dangerous rallying cry for those who seek to impose a narrow, exclusionary vision of Christianity on a diverse society. Figures like Pete Hegseth, through their rhetoric and influence, contribute to this movement, threatening the foundational values of liberty, equality, and democracy.
As a British woman, I have seen the consequences of religious conflict and the benefits of secular governance. America’s strength lies in its diversity and its commitment to freedom for all, regardless of faith or belief. To embrace the rhetoric of “Deus vult” is to turn away from this ideal, risking not only division within its borders but also its standing as a global leader in democratic values. For the sake of its future, America must reject theocratic aspirations and reaffirm its commitment to pluralism and secularism.
