In the evolving landscape of American conservatism, figures like Jason Whitlock and Candace Owens have emerged as influential voices, each articulating distinct visions of faith, identity, and civility. Whitlock, a sports journalist turned cultural commentator, has championed a form of Christianity that emphasizes traditional masculinity, personal responsibility, and a unifying moral framework. In contrast, Candace Owens, alongside her husband George Farmer, has embraced a version of Catholicism marked by controversial rhetoric, including anti-Semitic tropes, which they frame as a defense of Christian values. Whitlock’s approach to male Christianity offers a more constructive and inclusive model for American civility than Owens’ anti-Semitic, ultra-traditionalist Catholicism, which risks alienating communities and undermining social cohesion. Through an analysis of their public personas, theological underpinnings, and social impact, I demonstrate why Whitlock’s vision is better suited to fostering a balanced, unifying civic discourse.
Jason Whitlock’s embrace of Christianity is rooted in a vision of faith that prioritizes male leadership, moral accountability, and cultural restoration. As a commentator on platforms like Blaze Media, Whitlock has consistently argued that the erosion of traditional values—particularly among men—has contributed to societal decline. His brand of Christianity emphasizes biblical principles such as discipline, courage, and family leadership, which he believes are essential for rebuilding a strong, civil society. Whitlock’s focus on “male Christianity” is not exclusionary but rather a call to men to reclaim their roles as protectors and providers, thereby stabilizing communities.
Whitlock’s approach is grounded in a universalist interpretation of Christian ethics, which transcends racial and ethnic divisions. He frequently critiques what he sees as the excesses of secular culture, including the glorification of materialism and the marginalization of faith, but does so without resorting to scapegoating or divisive rhetoric. For example, Whitlock has praised figures like Andrew Tate for their appeal to young men seeking purpose, while simultaneously urging them to channel their energy into constructive, faith-based frameworks rather than misogyny or extremism. This balanced critique reflects Whitlock’s commitment to civility, as he seeks to engage rather than alienate his audience.
Jason's Christianity is pragmatic and community-oriented. He advocates for a return to church-based social structures, where men can find mentorship and accountability. His rhetoric avoids the conspiratorial tone that often characterizes far-right discourse, focusing instead on personal transformation as a pathway to societal change. By emphasizing virtues like humility and service, Whitlock’s male Christianity aligns with a vision of American civility that values dialogue, mutual respect, and collective progress.
In contrast, Candace Owens’ conversion to Catholicism, alongside her husband George Farmer, has been marked by a hyper-traditionalist stance that often veers into inflammatory territory. Owens announced her conversion in April 2024, describing it as a “decision to go home” to a faith she believes embodies ultimate truth. While her embrace of Catholicism could have been a unifying force, her public rhetoric has instead fueled division, particularly through her repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes. Owens has endorsed conspiracy theories about Jewish influence in Hollywood, politics, and global affairs, framing them as threats to Christian values. Her use of the phrase “Christ is King,” while ostensibly a statement of faith, has been co-opted by white nationalist groups like Nick Fuentes’ Groypers, who use it as an anti-Semitic dog whistle.
Owens’ rhetoric often employs a “just asking questions” approach, which allows her to insinuate controversial claims while retreating to a position of victimhood when criticized. For instance, her feud with Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a Jewish conservative, escalated when she implied that his pro-Israel stance conflicted with Christian principles, a move widely interpreted as anti-Semitic. Her comments about a “Christian Holocaust” and Jewish “gangs” in Hollywood further inflamed tensions, drawing praise from figures like Fuentes while alienating mainstream conservatives.
George Farmer, a devout Catholic and former CEO of Parler, has reinforced Owens’ traditionalist Catholicism, which aligns with the “TradCath” movement. This movement emphasizes Latin Mass, Crusader imagery, and a nostalgic vision of a white, Christian Western civilization. While appealing to some conservatives, this vision excludes those who do not share its rigid theological or cultural framework, undermining the pluralism essential to American civility. Owens’ association with the Catholic Identity Conference, a hub for fringe conservative Catholicism, further ties her to a brand of faith that prioritizes ideological purity over broader societal engagement.
American civility, at its core, requires a commitment to dialogue, mutual respect, and the recognition of shared humanity across differences. Whitlock’s male Christianity advances this ideal by focusing on universal values that can resonate with diverse audiences. His emphasis on personal responsibility and community-building encourages men to engage constructively with society, fostering stability without demonizing any group. While Whitlock’s rhetoric can be provocative—particularly his critiques of progressive ideologies—it remains rooted in a desire to uplift rather than divide. His avoidance of conspiracy theories and ethnic scapegoating ensures that his message does not alienate entire communities, making it more conducive to civic harmony.
Owens’ uber-Catholicism, however, undermines civility by embracing divisive tropes that perpetuate historical prejudices. Her anti-Semitic rhetoric, whether intentional or reckless, revives dangerous stereotypes that have fueled violence and discrimination for centuries. By aligning with figures like Fuentes and amplifying their narratives, Owens risks normalizing extremist ideologies within conservative circles, a trend that threatens the broader social fabric. Her focus on a narrow, exclusionary vision of Christianity also alienates non-Catholics and moderate conservatives, limiting her ability to foster a unified civic discourse.
Furthermore, Owens’ approach lacks the pragmatic, community-oriented focus of Whitlock’s Christianity. While Whitlock calls for grassroots renewal through church and family, Owens’ rhetoric often serves as a performative spectacle, designed to provoke and garner attention. Her reliance on victimhood narratives—claiming persecution as a Christian or Black woman—further polarizes discussions, casting critics as enemies rather than potential interlocutors. This contrasts sharply with Whitlock’s willingness to engage critics constructively, even when he disagrees.
In the contest of ideas shaping American conservatism, Jason Whitlock’s embrace of male Christianity offers a more promising path for civility than Candace Owens’ anti-Semitic, uber-Catholic vision. Whitlock’s focus on universal values, personal responsibility, and community engagement aligns with the principles of mutual respect and dialogue that underpin a healthy civic society. His avoidance of divisive tropes and conspiracies ensures that his message can bridge divides rather than exacerbate them. Owens, by contrast, undermines civility through her inflammatory rhetoric and exclusionary theology, which alienate communities and fuel polarization. While both figures seek to restore faith in public life, Whitlock’s approach is better equipped to foster a cohesive, inclusive America, where civility can thrive amidst diversity.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
