The Great Cat Poo Medallion

Rod Dreher has a good piece here on the great looming alternative that now confronts us.

Within the biblical framework of a rightly-ordered patriotism, it is easy for Christians to take our native loyalties to our native land as a simple given, while reserving to ourselves the right to disagree with or oppose the decisions and mandates of the current administration. Jeremiah was no less a patriot for challenging King Zedekiah. Seems simple.

But when the canker of rebellious idolatry is well-advanced in any nation, the possibility of the regnant idolaters seeing believers as part of a loyal opposition begins to steadily erode. A totalitarian miasma sets in, and any disagreement with the current forms of legislated disobedience is taken either as mental illness or treason. When Stalin wanted to deal with his political enemies, he used psychiatry to define them into his version of the outer darkness. When the ancient Romans persecuted the Christians, they did so because the Christians were enemies of mankind. And in our day, simple disagreement with the proposals surrounding same sex mirage is categorized simply, routinely, and quite handily, as “hate.” That was an extraordinary move, and entirely predictable.

And someone who is mentally ill, or treasonous, is not someone who can be a loyal son of his nation. He cannot be one who simply disagrees with the current push for same sex mirages. He is outside the pale, and he is out there by definition.

So Christians need to start making some emotional adjustments, by way of preparation. “I love my country, I fear my government” is a common sentiment among us, reflecting the common distinction I mentioned above. And our position is that our fear of God necessitates that we oppose certain actions of our government, but we need not say that it necessitates a contempt for our people, customs, language, culture, etc. That is, it does not necessitate it on our end. It very well may become a requirement coming at us from the other direction. In fact, that is what is happening, and it has been the strategic play since the appearance of the very first “Hate is Not a Family Value” bumper sticker.

I do love my country, and detest the current regime (and by “regime” I am referring to more than the current administration). Well, of course the current regime has the ability to make us choose between their policies and Jesus — that’s the easy part — but they can also frame the debate in such a way that it appears we have to reject our people and nation for the sake of Christ. It does no good to complain about them taking hostages like this — one of the results of them being in power is they can manipulate things in this way. We are not all the way there yet, but we are most of the way there.

In other words, what happens when the definition of fundamental allegiance is formally and officially altered (actually, or in effect), such that any true believer in Christ would be prohibited from professing it? The early Christians were not persecuted because of their loyalty to Jesus. That was fine with the Romans. Whatever you wanted to worship in your spare time was fine with them. The problem was caused by the Christian loyalty to Jesus precluding a certain kind of loyalty to the state. The Christians were not persecuted because of their prayers to Jesus. They were persecuted because of their refusal to say a dinky little ceremonial prayer to Caesar.

As Chesterton puts it in The Everlasting Man . . .

“A convenient compromise had been made between all the multitudinous myths and religions of the Empire; that each group should worship freely and merely give a sort of official flourish of thanks to the tolerant Emperor, by tossing a little incense to him under his official title of Divus” (p. 163).

The only problem was that faithful Christians, a lot of them, wouldn’t do it. From a secular vantage point, the Romans really were being extremely tolerant, and were fully prepared to continue being that tolerant — as long as they were recognized as the final authority. And the Christians, refusing to make that concession, seemed to the authorities to be driven by sheer cussedness. But given God’s Word to us, Christians simply cannot do this kind of thing. Not to overstate the case, it is the “Supreme Court,” not the “Supreme Being.”

Because of this, again in Chesterton’s words, the enemies of Christ responded the way they always do, by surrounding us with their own peculiar forms of organized malice — “the halo of hatred around the Church of God.” And as American Christians, once free and happy, prepare themselves to start wearing that peculiar halo again, a recent move is to accuse them of being whiners about a bunch of nothing, a charge that appears to be right on schedule. You poor, delusional thing, you. “The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?” (John 7:20).

It is most clear that we are on the verge of that stage of the proceedings now. So when the decree comes down and we are told — as we are now being prepared to be told — that we cannot oppose same sex mirage and be good Americans, our first reply ought to be “very well then, have it your way. We shall be bad Americans.”

My citizenship, my affections, my loyalties whether national or regional, my manner of expression, my lever-action Winchester, my language, my love of pie, my Americanism . . . these are all contingent things. They are all creatures, because they are attributes of my life and existence, and I am a creature. Our nation, and all its pleasant things, is a creature. The grass withers, and the flower fades.

The purveyors of soft despotism want to arrange things so  that we conform fully to their agenda, or consign ourselves to their idea of the outer darkness, which turns out to be the same kind of place as Stalin’s.

Because I think like a Christian, I don’t necessarily think it is a necessary choice at all. But it is only not necessary in a nation that is not despotic — and ours is metastasizing into despotism. So under their terms, under their rule, such a choice is mandatory — because in times of persecution, they will make it necessary — which means that I will swallow the reductio. Force me to choose between Jesus and America, and then watch me choose Jesus.

The apostle Paul knew what it was to be a true Jew (Rom. 2:29). He loved his native people intensely (Rom. 9:3-5). But he also knew that it was possible for the earthly chess pieces to be maneuvered in such a way that we might have to sacrifice our queen, and real Christians are always prepared to do this gladly. This was something Paul was willing to do, and so if you successfully got him into the position where he had to decide between being a Hebrew of Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5) and the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:8), he didn’t even have to think about it. The prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:14) or the Medal of Freedom? Well, if you make me choose, friend, the Medal of Freedom strikes me as a haphazard affair, as a Pringles lid hung around some compromised neck with frayed shoe laces, and said lid heavily caked with cat poo.

Is it really the settled public policy of the American nation that we must choose between our love for Jesus Christ and His heavenly kingdom, on the one hand, and on the other, parades in all our major cities celebrating anal intercourse? Well, let me think about it. Can you give me some more time?

Those believers who have had an ordinary love of country, coupled with a naive (and very unbiblical) belief that America could never become an idolatrous adversary to the kingdom of God, are the kind of people who would be quick to acknowledge on paper that if we had to choose between God and country, we should always and everywhere choose God. But having ticked that box, they murmur to themselves that they are very glad that they could never be called upon to make that choice. Sorry, but here it is. Right on top of us.

Our nation is a nation just like all the others, and we can spiral into spiritual apostasy just like all the others. We are now more than halfway down the line of statues in the royal hall of Charn, where the look of our earlier nobility has vanished and we are just three elections away from the coldest forms of despair. Just think — all over the world, drone strikes making the world safe for sodomy.

As a nation like all others, we do have the option of repentance as well. But the first sin requiring the deepest repentance will have to be that damn-fool notion of American exceptionalism.

This is why pastors have a particular and pressing duty here. If this despotic modern state is the idol of our age — and it is — then pastors have a pressing duty to prepare their parishioners to resist it. We have a duty to prepare our people to refuse to bow down when they hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer (Dan. 3:5). Those instruments seem odd to us today, and so does Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, but you may depend upon it — at the time, bowing down to that statue to that music at that time was about as mainstream as you could possibly get, and the only people left standing were the extremists and weirdos.

John warns Christians as little children, telling them to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21). This will be a pressing danger when the idolatry is mainstream, when paying your mortgage depends on conforming, when all the networks are asking what the big deal is, when we can’t buy or sell without offering that pinch of incense to the emperor, and the music has been playing for a good minute and a half now. People are starting to look. You see an official in the back writing down your name.

It is quite true that idolatry can exist as a matter of heart motive. Paul does says that greed is idolatry, for example (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). But the idolatrous state doesn’t care if you are an idolater in your heart only — they will at some point insist that you register. We sometimes have a rarefied view of idolatry, thinking that such a sin could only be determined when we appear before God at the great judgment seat. We will appear there in order to answer His series of trick questions, and when He asks us which is more important, being American or Christian, we need to say, “Christian! Of course!”

But the trick questions aren’t there — they are all here.  Pastors don’t need to be preparing men to not deny Christ before the Father. They need to teach them how to not deny Him before men (Matt. 10:33).

Skip to 63 Comments
Letters
Submit A Letter to the Editor. Well-written, fair-minded letters may be interacted with in featured posts. Also, please mention the title of the post which you are addressing.

63
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
63 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
41 Comment authors
Tim BushongmikehornNabuquduriuzhurJane Dunsworthkatecho Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Robert
Guest
Robert

Another tactic seems to be to just change the demographic, ie amnesty. What is your take on that?

Steve Morris
Guest

“Pastors don’t need to be preparing men to not deny Christ before the Father. They need to teach them how to not deny Him before men (Matt. 10:33).” Amen, and Amen. And they must also be preparing the “men” to teach their own “future men” (sons) and daughters to do the same. Daniel and his faithful friends were but youths when they refused to eat the king’s meat or bow before the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. May God give us the grace to see our children publicly profess the good confession also. So many of the early Christian martyrs were not… Read more »

Ben Bowman
Guest

When a man engages in idolatry he chooses to place something above the supremacy of God in his life because he thinks that by doing so he will trick others, and himself into believing that “something” is his idol, when it is in fact always been himself.

Great post Doug. Especially the part about repenting of the notion of American Exceptionalism.

Dave Matre
Guest
Dave Matre

My lever-action Winchester may well be a contingent thing, but if I lose it, I stand to lose a lot more.

Respectabiggle
Guest
Respectabiggle

Shiny. Let’s be bad guys.

Missouri Tenth
Guest

As a Christian who works in attempting to engage and educate as to a Biblical view of Government, I found this article to be very encouraging. While we do have good reason to be gravely concerned as to well over a century of abuses in the U.S. federal system (and many of our state governments too), Christians should understand that our states have a rich history of powerful Christian leaders who, through the wisdom of God, helped our various communities thrive. Therefore, while Christians in recent years have certainly been guilty of being a bit lazy, ignorant, or surrendering to… Read more »

R Popp
Guest
R Popp

Post a comment

Roy
Guest
Roy

I believe the referenced article from Dreher is provides additional context. Is it truly difficult to imagine, 17 years from now, substituting polygamy or adult/child marriage in place of same-sex?
Yeah, I’m a hater.

R Popp
Guest
R Popp

My great grandfather entered prison as a young man (1890’s, central Europe) because he chose not to bend the knee to caesar over one point of faith. He left behind a young wife and baby. She would travel two hours by train, then walk two miles carrying the baby and food to him. He was once struck back by rifle butts (once was probably enough) when he in longing reached out to touch his son. He evidently was never given the food as after two years he was released from prison into his wife’s care. He was very sick. He… Read more »

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

Respectfully, I think you misapprehend the point of American exceptionalism. We have people of every religion living here in relative peace and freedom, and mostly as good neighbors, because we accept as a given that no religion gets to control the government. We don’t have different sects blowing each other up like they do in Iraq because unlike Iraq, there’s no reason to since neither sect gets to use the state to enforce its doctrines. And that’s what makes America a special place: For maybe the first time in history, Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus are living side… Read more »

Joe Rigney
Guest
Joe Rigney

Eric the Red,

“Everyone can go quietly about their business* without having to worry about being on the wrong side of a religious civil war.

*Unless your a wedding photographer/florist/baker/B&B owner, in which case the State will compel you to violate your religious beliefs to appease the gods of pomosexuality.**

**Or a conscientious business owner, who doesn’t want to fund his employees abortifacents.**

***The State reserves the right to amend and add to the list whenever they please.

Charlie Long
Guest

Here’s where Eric is wrong: the people in control of the government *now* are the ones saying nobody in particular will be allowed to control the government. The trick is for those in power to pretend that they are nobody in particular. “We’re tge impartial ones, who have no agenda,” they insist. Eric actually buys that line. He’s not alone, unfortunately.

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

Joe, it is one thing to tell a PCA church that it must ordain gay clergy in violation of its fundamental doctrines and in violation of the reason for its very existence, and that does not happen. Nor, under the First Amendment, can it happen. It is another thing entirely to tell someone who is engaged in the secular business of photography but who happens to be an anti-gay PCAer that his secular business is covered by the same laws that govern every other business. If we allow secular businesses to ignore generally-applicable laws because of the owner’s religious beliefs,… Read more »

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

We don’t have different sects blowing each other up … And that’s what makes America a special place

True enough. On the other hand, your state also actively condones the killing of thousands of otherwise healthy infant children every year. Does that also make America a special place?

Jason
Guest
Jason

Eric, by this logic, the First Amendment’s religious clause of “free exercise thereof” means absolutely nothing. The laws of the government are subject to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thus, woven into the very fabric of the legal code is a subjection of every law to be read in light of those documents. To say otherwise is in essence to say that there really is no such thing as “free exercise thereof.” What you posit is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can imagine that X may happen, doesn’t necessitate that X will happen. And even if… Read more »

Tim
Guest
Tim

You can all go about your own business, and the government will define what business it is that you can go about. If your religion requires you to do something the government doesn’t allow, or prohibits you from doing something the government says must be in your business, then just find another business. So everyone, for the first time in history, gets to go about his own “business”. (see the Federal Register for “business”) And this is freedom, because the government has no religion, you see. Eric, there has never been a theory so naive. Today you’re happy with the… Read more »

Kevin
Guest
Kevin

Missouri Tenth,

Quite right. We do have Christians engaged in the process.

Doug,

The underlying point is true, but let’s not get too apocalyptic. Having worked on worked on “The Hill,” I know there’s not a few Christian warriors out there. Perhaps you need a visit to DC.

I’ve found previous posts more helpful–there was one about 10 steps or so to take.

Kevin

Carson Spratt
Member

Hey Eric, you assume that religious beliefs should not permeate all of life. If you can’t act on your beliefs, can you be said to really believe them? You’re asking us to stop believing something or go out of business, which is no big deal, you all say. Just make the simple choice between your lawful business and your fundamental beliefs. And here I was thinking you LIKED the First Amendment… One more thing: your scenario of anarchy assumes that the opposite of enforcing state standards of coercive tolerance is no standard at all. Why are state standards and no… Read more »

buddyglass
Guest
buddyglass

The 1st amendment guarantee of free exercise is not, and was never intended to be, without limit. There are all sorts of things you don’t get to do even if your religion demands it. You don’t get to sacrifice your kid to Baal. You don’t get to circumcise your daughter. You don’t get to deny your kid medically necessary blood transfusions. You don’t get to walk around naked. Why? Because each of things trespasses on someone else’s right and we’ve deemed those rights to trump your claim to religious expression. In the case of bakers and photographers, for the moment,… Read more »

Bob French
Member

I like this guy!

Michael Lynch
Guest
Michael Lynch

This sounds kinda doom-and-gloomy from a postmil. I may be wrong, but that how this piece came across to me.

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of 9/11 hijackers to seize planes and fly them into buildings? They were doing what their religion told them to do. What about religious based pedophilia; does the First Amendment protect that? If y’all agree with me that the answers to those questions is no, then you agree with me that free exercise isn’t absolute, and we’re merely quibbling about where the line is to be drawn, not whether it exists. And where the courts have drawn it (and I mostly agree with them) is at the speech/conduct distinction. You are free to… Read more »

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

By the way, as an atheist, I don’t get a conscience objection to laws. It doesn’t matter how objectionable I may find a particular law, or how well thought out my objection to it may be, my conscience doesn’t exempt me from obeying general laws. So why should yours?

Matthias
Guest

It’s not mere conscience, Eric. And I think you know that by now. Nor is “free exercise” absolute. I don’t think you’d find Pastor Wilson affirming it. It seems that whenever you articulate an objection, you’re refusing to speak in terms Christianity actually uses. I’m sorry, but you rarely land a valid point.

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

Well, Matthias, that’s because you consider Christianity to be a special case, but I don’t. It’s a belief system entitled to the same respect and legal rights as every other belief system. Furthermore, under the First Amendment, the government has to treat all belief systems the same. Are you sure you want the state deciding what is and is not the best belief system?

THX-1138
Guest
THX-1138

Eric the Red, there is a distinction between being a participant in a ceremony that is against one’s religious convictions, and discriminating against someone for being gay. If a gay couple wanted to have a photographic session for their daughter who is a High School Senior, and the photographer said “I do not want to do it, because you are gay”, that is one thing–analogous to not serving a “Negro” in the deep south in the 1960’s in your restaurant. But a marriage ceremony between two members of the same sex–THAT is inherently religious in nature, and to demand services… Read more »

Matthias
Guest

The state doesn’t have the authority (much less the wherewithal) to decide something like that. But neither does it need to. While they’re generally dead-set on not making laws respecting any religion, nevertheless, refusal of service (any service, really) on religious grounds is a free exercise of that religion, and this is what the government is seeking to prohibit. Does that not make sense?

Eric the Red
Guest
Eric the Red

Politcal belief in general (and Neo-Nazis in particular) is not protected from discrimination the way race, sex and sexual orientation (and a few other classifications) are. If you don’t want to serve someone because they’re of the wrong political party, that’s legal. In fact, there is a restaurant in my city whose owner had a bad experience with the TSA at the airport who refuses to serve TSA agents, and that’s legal since being a TSA agent is not a protected class. But on the broader question of whether there should be laws that require restaurant owners or photographers to… Read more »

Jane
Member

However, if you accept the premise of the law — that the problem is widespread enough to require a government solution — then the only way it works is to require that everybody participate. Except that the free exercise clause was written precisely because it was recognized that religious exercise presents a special case. If the rule is, “If a law is needed, there can be no exceptions,” then the free exercise clause makes no sense whatsoever. The free exercise clause says, that despite the necessity for consistent application of a law, religious exercise is, if you will, “sacred” territory.… Read more »

Scott P
Guest
Scott P

The reason that we could have a basically free country was because of the homogeneity of our beliefs. Eric is right that the radical Muslim presents a problem to any state. (How much more trouble would he have trying to police the motivations of every social and economic transaction.) The problem will not be solved by a benign state. Only a tyranny such as you see in the Middle East has the power to partially sheild a minority from repression and bloodshed in a truly diverse society. I think that we will find that the post-Christian majority will be much… Read more »

wackytobeme
Member

“However, if you accept the premise of the law — that the problem is widespread enough to require a government solution — then the only way it works is to require that everybody participate” So who decides when a problem becomes widespread? What percent of the population must be effected for a government solution? Especially in these situations where there is probably a willing bakery just around the corner or down the road? These bakers aren’t keeping them from having their ceremony, just expressed their desire not to participate so how can they be violating their rights? Their inquiry stated,… Read more »

Mike M
Guest
Mike M

Why is this happening now? The body of Christ in America has been relatively persecution free for a couple of centuries now. The result has been a general apathy toward the furtherance of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The gospel that most of the church now holds forth today does not even qualify as a cheap immitation of the Gospel of the early church. Consider this. In the past, the olive press of persecution has had a remarkable affect in the church. Just as an olive, when pressed, expresses olive oil, The church when pressed expresses Christ. It… Read more »

Roy
Guest
Roy

Props to Mike M for bringing it to an application level. Much of the other is camouflage for both ditches.

Ianopolis
Guest
Ianopolis

I think it’s a mistake to believe that the reason why all the different religions are living together peacefully in America has to do with everyone’s acceptance of the separation of church and state. I suspect the bonds holding America together are much more fragile. The common bond seems to be economic prosperity. As long as there is economic opportunity everyone seems to get along. If and when that prosperity ceases I have a feeling we are in for a very different climate.

Carson Spratt
Member

So, Eric, it finally comes down to what you have declared so often before, and what once again must be firmly denied: you think the government’s word is the final court of appeal. Christians believe that God is the final court of appeal. Government says homosexuals can marry, God says they can’t. You side with the government on this, and we don’t. However, you must recognize (for however resolvedly you strive, you will NOT convince me you’re unintelligent) that the homosexual BELIEF that they have a right to marry is being supported by the government. You have missed the fundamentally… Read more »

Wally
Guest
Wally

Agree w/ Doug, however, the word xian should be discarded, along with the word Christ, too much historical anti-semitic baggage – many now call themselves Believers. Much better.
The word church ditto, say congregation, kirk, group anything but the much shat-on word “church”.

buddyglass
Guest
buddyglass

“you think the government’s word is the final court of appeal. Christians believe that God is the final court of appeal. Government says homosexuals can marry, God says they can’t. You side with the government on this, and we don’t.” It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that one has to “side with the government” or “side with God” on this issue. That would be true only if we assume that the criteria by which the state chooses which alleged marriages to recognize should necessarily match the criteria by which God chooses which alleged marriages to recognize. It’s not clear to… Read more »

Richard Maloney
Guest
Richard Maloney

“Just think — all over the world, drone strikes making the world safe for sodomy.”

How very Westboro Baptist of you. Maybe you should start picketing military funerals?

chiamac
Guest
chiamac

What I find interesting, and I apologize upfront for not being as well read as some members here, but it is neat to replace the word God with Allah, and Christian with Muslim (or whatever Muslim sect you want) and all of a sudden it reads like the person would be tickled pink to have sharia law implemented on a local state and federal level. This, aside from some language differences isn’t all that much different than extremely conservative Jewish sects in how they treat women and each other, and I feel wouldn’t be all that much different than letting… Read more »

Ianopolis
Guest
Ianopolis

Now replace the word God with the word State and the word Christian with the word Secularist and I think you will begin to see the point. It’s not whether a particular religion will determine the laws of the land, but rather which religion it will be.

Matthias
Guest

Richard. Wut?

Ianopolis
Guest
Ianopolis

“If voting Christian is ok, then surly it must be as fine for other religions to do the same in different areas?” If pederasts become the majority and vote to legalize child abuse it is not as “fine” as if the majority where inclined to outlaw said behavior. It is not as “fine” precisely because there is a God who is the ultimate definer of what is “fine” and who will judge accordingly. So while it is not “fine” for a majority of pederasts to seek to make child abuse legal, it is NOT SUPRISING that that would try.

David Wray
Guest
David Wray

It is more fundamental. There is either a natural law defined by a higher power or there is not. If not, then men through their institutions decide what is right and wrong. Once it is a human decision then anything goes. In the past our laws were decided by people who beloved there was such natural law. (They may have disagreed on what that was and belivers still do.) Today that is less and less the case. What many see as an attack on Christianity is a more basic attempt to undermine the legitimacy of those arguing that the laws… Read more »

Hawley Smith
Guest
Hawley Smith

I believe that we as Christians have become to tolerant of those issues that tend to destroy us. I hear nothing about “what are the Christians doing about the recent Supreme Court ruling that Marriage can be defined as also being between two of the same sex.” Why are we tolerating this? The only way to over rule the Supreme Court is by passing a Constitutional Amendment. If Congress won’t do it, then we need a call for a Constitutional Conventional to amend the Constitution. Christians are still the majority in this country, but are not using their power because… Read more »

pearl
Guest
pearl

I think you do a small injustice to those who have claimed “American Exceptionalism” in that, for many, the “exceptionalism” consisted in that very act of laying our prosperity to the credit of the Almighty. We acknowledged His supreme governance in our affairs and begged His grace and protection. For this reason, we claimed to stand apart from hosts of nations who boasted of power and wealth. Insofar as this is our heritage, I am indeed proud of American Exceptionalism, but lest I become “proud of my humility”, I must acknowledge that, today, we must re-dedicate ourselves to Christ and… Read more »

Lorna Westlake
Guest
Lorna Westlake

Good article but seemingly a little biased toward right wing concerns. I would hope that the writer was motivated by a similar concern about where his nation was heading when the attack on another nation (Iraq) under false pretexts occurred in 2003. This war cost many people their lives. God, through the Bible, has a lot to say about bloody, violent empires. Our country spends as much money as the next ten countries combined on weapons of war. Which does God abhor more, homosexuals or warmongers? Toward the end of the piece he cites Paul as saying greed is idolatry.… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

So when the decree comes down and we are told — as we are now being prepared to be told — that we cannot oppose same sex mirage and be good Americans, our first reply ought to be “very well then, have it your way. We shall be bad Americans.”
(cite) (/cite)
Ok, but what is anyone actually making you do? Be honest here, is what is happening in America today the advance of persecution, or the retreat of privilege?

Katecho
Member

Ianopolis wrote: Now replace the word God with the word State and the word Christian with the word Secularist and I think you will begin to see the point. It’s not whether a particular religion will determine the laws of the land, but rather which religion it will be. Ianopolis has put his finger on the real issue. Folks like Eric the Red are still laboring under the delusion that they have achieved the glorious secular neutrality. Or rather they are still advertising this delusion for anyone gullible enough to buy it. Meanwhile culture is being scrubbed of public expressions… Read more »

Matthias
Guest

Matt, they are requiring us to be less Christian in order to become more American, in simplest terms. What was once commonplace and perfectly appropriate is being designated “privilege” in order to scale it back. So you’re simply offering two semantic perspectives. But, the advance of non-Christian privilege is actually occurring.

bob42
Guest
bob42

I don’t think this claim is in anyway true, but I’ve seen it often axiomatically presumed to be true by hypersensitive authoritarians. So when the decree comes down and we are told — as we are now being prepared to be told — that we cannot oppose same sex mirage and be good Americans, our first reply ought to be “very well then, have it your way. We shall be bad Americans. You can be a “good American” and believe whatever you like about anything you like. What you may not do is impose your personal beliefs on other people… Read more »