have been reluctant to take on too many political issues here on this blog. One reason is that I recognize that many of my brothers and sisters have strong differences of opinion regarding political action, patriotism, etc. And I want to completely respect those differences. (Hmmm, that never stops me from talking about other controversial subjects, though…hmmm 
)
Anyway, I have been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way in which debates are framed regarding religious liberties in our nation. The message that I seem to keep getting is that we want continued religious freedom, yet somehow that always seems defined as making sure that Christianity gets top billing.
In other words, it’s not enough for us to have the freedom to pray. We want the freedom to make everyone else around us listen to our prayer. It’s not enough for us to trust in God. We want to make everyone else articulate that their trust is in God, too. It’s not enough for us to live “under God”. We want to make sure that everyone else declares that we are a nation “under God”, as well. (Of course, this begs the question whether or not we really are a nation “under God”, but I’ll let that go for the moment.)
I have watched while one leader after another talks about the “attack on Christianity” that is allegedly taking place in our nation. But is it so much an attack on Christianity, or merely a recognition that our version of a “Christian nation” is not what our nation was originally founded to be?
Today, we received another in a long series of phone calls from Jay Sekulow’s organization, ACLJ. The American Center for Law and Justice has been calling us to try to get support for their legal battles against Michael Newdow, the well-known atheist who has attempted to stop prayer at the Presidential Inauguration, remove “under God” from the pledge to the flag, and now apparently is trying to remove “In God We Trust” from our money.
I politely asked the lady on the other end of the line to take us off of their call list. Why? Because I don’t care about Christian freedoms? No, that’s not it at all. What I don’t care for is the fear and misrepresentation of events that continues to be the norm in Christian political action groups.
See, in the recorded message that they played for me, Jay Sekulow said that if Newdow succeeds, there will be “no public religious expression allowed” (I think those were the exact words). I’m sorry, but that is an overstatement of the facts, and is designed (whether intentionally or not) to spark fear and action in the hearts of Christians all across our nation. After all, who wouldn’t want to stand up for that, right?
Ironically, in a statement on ACLJ’s own website, this explanation is given as to why the national motto should remain what it is:
The price of freedom in this country is that sometimes you are exposed to words, expressions, or phrases that you do not agree with or that offend you. That is the price of freedom.
The problem with this statement is that it never seems to apply when, for example, merchants choose to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Or when someone wants to talk about evolution. Or when an atheist expresses his desire to pledge allegiance without saying “under God”.
Are we really in support of freedom? Or are we trying to make this nation something that it’s not? I’m afraid it’s the latter.
Paul wrote that we should pray for our government (1 Timothy 2:1-2) so that we could live at peace. I believe that the implication would be that we could worship as we wish without government interference. But this does not extend to making sure that we can publicly force others to say words that have no meaning to them personally.
I would love to see politically active people like Jay Sekulow, James Dobson, and others think through the ramifications of their positions before scaring others into aligning with them.
Any thoughts?
Until next time,
steve 
Steve,
I agree! Sign me up! Let’s start a new political party! I’ll run for vice-president to your presidency!
Seriously… I think the reason we see this so much is because it is easier to legislate than to disciple. It is easier to live under a government that accepts your beliefs than one that doesn’t.
-Alan
Alan, I think you are correct on both points. Thanks for the comment.
Some of these pursuits of “acknowledging” God is foolishness. However, the end they are fighting is moral relativism. If we say that this is not a Christian nation because God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (and deny that it grants rather than protects rights that are inalienable and God-given as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence), then I believe our legal system has no moral ground. If there is no higher authority than man-made government, why should I listen to/obey anyone unless it directly benefits me?
This applies to other freedom issues as well – everyone believes in freedom of expression, as long as they aren’t being offended. Remove God’s standard of offense, and there is no limit. Most people don’t really want that, but that is what unbridled freedom of expression is.
God is not pleased with having other gods beside him either. I am not interested in recognizing the modern-day Baal as an equal to Jehovah. That is where our society is headed or maybe has already arrived.
I don’t suggest a theocracy, but these American ideals of freedom fall apart when left to the fallen man alone.
Eric, thanks for your input. I’m not entirely sure I understand your entire comment, but if I do understand, you’re saying that it freedom and the worship of the true God go hand in hand. Is that correct?
The problem I see is that your comments seem to imply, then, that atheists are a threat to any form of government. You said, “If there is no higher authority than man-made government, why should I listen to/obey anyone unless it directly benefits me?”
I think this misses the point that government, in itself, serves as a deterrent, even without a higher authority. Now, you and I both know that their authority comes from God. Scripture makes this plain. But to say that without recognizing that higher authority, all chaos breaks loose (I’m paraphrasing you quite liberally!) implies that our worst criminals should, by definition, be atheists. I’m not certain this is the case, though.
Am I missing something in your comment?
Steve,
Fear has been an able motivator for conservative, right wing political activists for some time now. Add to that the stigma that if you do not agree with them, then you are disagreeing with God, and you have yourself the building of a little empire.
In the end it comes back to the promotion of a that empire, the “emperors” of those little “empires” being nothing more than prosyletizers and moralists. They are using Christians and their “fear” of disagreeing with God to broaden their own power base.
Power and money are what enable someone like Ann Coulter to vilify homosexuals with no repercussions at all whatsoever; not even a slap on the wrist, just compounded with more hate speech. She jokingly laughs it off and further insults homosexuals.
I do not agree with many convictions several politicians and their hacks hold. However, I will defend to my dying breath their right to hold those convictions because this is America. The foundational principle upon which this country was established is that you are perfectly free to be absolutely wrong on any given issue and then be protected by Constitutional provision. If I negate that then my freedoms as a Christian will also be infringed upon.
Frankly, nations aren’t Christian. People are. Fighting to make this a Christian nation is to woefully miss the point.
Great post.
Tony, preach it, brother! I know you and I have discussed this issue before, and come down on the same side of it, but I love the passion with which you write about it!
Glad to have you here, my friend.
1. you can opt out of the pledge.
2. The nation’s founders came up with all the under god stuff… u can prolly try to complain to them through some siance or something.. not suggested
3. Everyone has the same rights. If ur atheist u can say there is no god all u want during school in any public place, w/o any legal mishaps. Same with buddhists and muslims ect. u know what i mean.
4. No real christian is gonna walk up to u punch u in the face and say hey say the under god part or say god bless.
5. I don’t know why homosexuals wanna get marriage privileges.. they can have em, i myself don’t care. I don’t agree with homosexuality, i find it to be immoral but thats my opinion.
I myself am a christian because through statistics and the good man steven hawkins mathematical skills, evolution is just unprovable. scientology provides no definite rights in life. They do provide the negative of doing something ie drugs and sexual activity and it also shows the positives.
I don’t wanna bother anyone’s life. If they’re happy that’s fine, but if ur unhappy a change in lifestyle ie a fulfilling religion or activity may be an option. I just don’t wanna go through life living to a standard a government put into law just because of some jail time. I wanna know that there’s something else to gain. Such as an afterlife, where i will be rewarded for good behavior and decency.
Btw.. I never paid attention during english class so plz feel free to constructively criticize my grammar and such.
[Note from Steve: I will not necessarily criticize your grammar, but I did edit the comment some to make it a bit more readable without completely changing your writing style.]
I just dont wanna go through life living to a standard a government put into law just because of some jail time. I wanna know thats there something else to gain.
mpsoldier, I certainly feel the same way. And I strongly believe that there is something way better than government to control my actions.
If I live as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, which I am, then I don’t have to fear the government. It (human gov’t) cannot be the impetus to godly living.
Steve,
I think Tony’s statement
“Frankly, nations aren’t Christian. People are. Fighting to make this a Christian nation is to woefully miss the point”
is a better way to summarize what I meant. Every government in history has turned from God either initially or eventually. America is no different. We are a very young country, relatively speaking. We happen to have enjoyed one of the longest running time periods for Christians to worship without persecution. I believe that consequence is due to our foundation.
Our freedoms that were sought initially in America seeking after God, must necessarily allow us the freedom to deny Him. Unless we are a theocratic state (which is partly why the pilgrims left England), the resulting equilibrium to be expected is moral relativism. All beliefs recognized equally, etc. “You can’t legislate morality” is a popular saying these days, yet that is exactly what legislation does. The question is, whose morality is legislated? How much is to be tolerated in the name of equality and freedom?
I believe the fear factor comes from the realization that our inherent freedoms cannot guarantee a Christian utopia. We are trying to point to the beliefs of the founders as boilerplate for the country, but in the end we make our own decisions in freedom – good or bad. Christians cannot legislate their morality without also accepting the morality of unbelievers. It is a lowest common denominator scenario. God’s providence is extended to believers and transcends man-made governments. America’s will come to an end as well, but I don’t think AFA boycotting businesses will enable anyone to see that.
I think this “battle” extends into preterist or dominionist vs. dispensationalist as well – as they are opposed as to the role(s) of America in prophecy. But that’s another topic.
Oh, it’s the same first amendment that allows Ann to vilify anyone she wants without repercussion that allows us to criticize her without repercussion.
See what I mean about the level of offense?
Eric, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, Tony’s comment hits it right on the head, doesn’t it? Tony’s good with stuff like that!
I get frustrated with Christian organizations trying to de-secularize the general public through the invocation of law. Like Tony said, it’s people who are Christian (or not) not nations. To attempt to create moral behavior through law is to fall back on the Old Testement. God proved it didn’t work then, so why would a group of people who claim they are saved by God’s grace think that banning gay marriage or abortion or the issue du jour, would somehow change society (or keep it from changing)?
Sigh. And all those people further alienated from God through the mis-guided actions of religious zealots. We may as well just go about hacking peoples ears off, but wait, that’s been tried, hasn’t it?
David Riggins, I agree with you. There is definitely an Old Testament mindset to political action, in my opinion. I think this is demonstrated very clearly in the push to have the 10 Commandments visible in courthouses, etc. Somehow, I just really think that the Kingdom of God operates on a wholly different plane and perspective. I think that’s exactly why people rejected Jesus when He preached that kingdom.
While I’m glad to be a citizen of the USA I’m even more glad to be a citizen of Heaven!
I think the goals that most of the Christian PACs have are honorable, I don’t think the methods are correct. This past Sunday our Sr Pastor spoke on the persecution of Christians in America. I must say, most of what was spoken of is not persecution, perhaps inconvenience or maybe disdain for Christianity but not true persecution. I found this to be somewhat manipulative just as some of the aforementioned methods.
I fully agree with Tony’s earlier comment “Frankly, nations aren’t Christian. People are. Fighting to make this a Christian nation is to woefully miss the point.” We aren’t going to really reach the lost by making them subject to Christian political leaders. We need to be reaching people with the love of Christ. We need to demonstrate that we have something different, and better!
Paul never tried to overthrow the Roman government, he accepted it for what it was and work with it, through it, around it. Having a Christian government doesn’t make people christians. Sinners will be sinners, they’re actually carrying out their “job descriptions.”
Our Christian freedoms and principles aren’t really provided for or protected by our civil government; it doesn’t really have that power. Sure, it’s nice to have the government behind you, but I think maybe that has been a contributing factor in the weakening of the Church over time.
Hope my ramblings aren’t too convoluted!
In Him,
-marty
marty, not convoluted at all! I appreciate your thoughts here.
We aren’t going to really reach the lost by making them subject to Christian political leaders. We need to be reaching people with the love of Christ. We need to demonstrate that we have something different, and better!
That’s a great way to express it. And you are so right!
Yes, I do have something to say……AMEN!
I could not agree with you more. I have often wondered why us christians fight for the things we do in the political scene.
Wow.
I’m floored.
I’ll be reading the rest of your blog over the next few days.
Very insightful.
I think the only thing that frightens me about your blog is the admission that there isn’t a Starbucks nearby.
Are you for real?
Housewife, welcome to the blog. I recognize that the admission that there isn’t a Starbucks nearby is frightening. In fact, it’s hard to believe that here in the US of A, one could even make such a bold claim.
But I assure you that I, and my claim, are for real
Alan, I think you are correct on both points. Thanks for the comment.