Connect with us

Politics

The Secularization of Christianity?

Published

on

In what can only be described as “completely uninformed,” a recent article submitted by Blair Scott of the American Atheists attempts to define its strategy and rationale for fighting the “secularization of Christianity.” If that phrase tripped you up, you are not alone. I had to read it twice to make sure I read it correctly. The author of the piece is not only a poor communicator, he is totally mistaken about what he is saying and the very terms he is using. One would tend to think that an atheist would be in favor of “secularizing” Christianity, but not so with this writer. He believes that when the cross and the Lord’s Prayer become common symbols in the culture, Christians will have accomplished their ultimate goal: a “theocratic” America.
Aside from the fact that theocracy means the “rule of God,” and not the “rule of Christians,” the author seems to believe that symbols made with perpendicular lines and words spoken by Jesus are such a threat to the civil and moral fabric of America that they must be fought against every time they are seen or heard. (And in the case of words spoken by Jesus he is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons that he thinks.) It is nothing short of ironic that in this situation the atheist is the one who is far more superstitious than even the most fundamentalist-minded Christian. He attributes so much power to these things, in fact, that even his atheist brethren have begun to question his motives (hence his reason for writing the article in the first place). Most Christians will not see themselves reflected in his diatribe and will simply ignore it, but this would be a mistake.
Let’s get two things perfectly clear at the outset: the First Amendment has nothing to do with this issue and, second, the “secularization” of Christianity would remove all religious connotations, thereby making Christianity (and the subsequent Christianizing) meaningless.
The first thing—the First Amendment issue—is easily enough dismissed with a refresher reading of the actual text of the relevant portion of the amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” You might want to read it two or three times to remind yourself of what isn’t there. Nowhere in the First Amendment is religion itself restrained or told what it can or can’t do. Nowhere does it state anything about a “wall of separation” existing between the two. Nowhere does it say that states are restricted in what religion they can or can’t endorse. The only restriction in the First Amendment is a restriction upon Congress: “Congress shall make no law…” This simply means that the federal government (the Senate and the House make up “Congress,” which is the legislative or lawmaking branch) cannot dictate to you what religion you will be a part of, nor how you “exercise” that religion. “The Establishment of Religion Clause was designed as a protection of the states against the federal government.” [i] Note that, the clause was meant to protect the states from the federal government, not to shackle the states to the federal government. The restriction placed upon Congress is in no way applicable to the states. This means that atheistic lawyers (and article writers) are required to argue at the state-level of legislation and cannot make emotional appeals to Jefferson’s “wall of separation.”
Also notice the wording of the amendment says “an establishment of religion” and not “the establishment of religion.” Again, this is a restriction upon Congress to prevent them from preferring one religious establishment over another. This has nothing to do with restricting Congress from religion altogether (which is what “the establishment” would do), which is precisely what many atheists want us to believe. And although many states have similar language in their own state-level constitutions, the federal restriction in the First Amendment does not so limit the states from endorsing a particular “establishment” of religion.
The second thing—the so-called secularization of Christianity—is a more perplexing issue, and it is not entirely clear why an atheist would oppose this, unless he truly believes that Christian symbolism and prayer have inherent power. The secularization of anything means to divorce it from its religious meaning. Our atheist author seems to think it means the “normalization” of the object in question. Astoundingly, he makes this paradoxical statement near the end of his article: “The only reason to secularize [the Lord’s Prayer] and make it ‘generic’ is to continue to push theocracy.” What? The strategy of “theocracy-pushing” Christians is to secularize the Lord’s Prayer to the point of being generic and this will then further the goals of theocracy? He seems to think so because he continues: “If you can convince the courts that an integral part of your religion is generic or secular then you have won the right to Christianize the country with the support of the judicial branch.” So then, the strategy is to make Christian theology so generic that it gets used and promoted everywhere, which will in turn Christianize the country? Too bad food companies never got wind of this covert strategy of getting people hooked on your generic products so you can then get them to buy your brand-name products. The logic (or lack thereof) here is astounding. If this author is representative of the crack atheist legal team hoping to prevent the “Christianizing” of America, they might want to begin looking for replacements.
Aside from all of his non-argumentation though, this atheist author makes an important point. Since I am a Christian and want to see others become Christians, I would fall into the complicit party of what he calls the “theocratization of the United States.” (By the way, so are you if you believe that county council meetings can begin with the Lord’s Prayer or that fallen state troopers can be memorialized with roadside crosses.) But, what this author understands, and what most Christians do not, is that there is a war raging around us. American Atheists and Americans United for the Separation of Church of State fully understand what is at stake, while most Christians fail to see what the fuss is all about. The atheists actually believe that Christians are united and are in on the “conspiracy” to Christianize America, but the reality is far from here.
Most Christians are only too happy to let the atheists argue for them, because they have long been convinced that their First Amendment rights are actually restrictions. Most Christians would be surprised to find out that there are actually two versions of the Lord’s Prayer in the New Testament (but despite what our atheist author claims, they do not “contradict each other”). Most Christians do not believe in the power of partisan Christian prayer, so they are not bothered when they are told to not pray “in Jesus’ name.” Atheist legal groups rightly fear the power of Christ and His Church, yet most Christians don’t even recognize it. American Christians need to learn a lesson from this atheist author and begin to appreciate why legal groups are willing to invest lots of time and money to fight what they view as the Christianizing of America. Even if Christians themselves don’t think they’re organized and powerful, those who oppose us certainly do. And if they believe we are powerful, then we actually are powerful. But just imagine how much more powerful we would be if we actually believed it ourselves.

 


[i] Edwin Meese, Matthew Spalding, David Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Regnery: Washington, DC, 2005), p. 304.
Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Singer Issues Vulgar Statement After His Song Was Played During Phoenix Trump Rally

Published

on

By

Singer Issues Vulgar Statement After His Song Was Played During Phoenix Trump Rally

The frontman for Panic! At The Disco, slammed the Trump campaign after Trump walked out to one of the band’s songs before his event in Phoenix, Arizona.

“Dear Trump Campaign, F— you. You’re not invited. Stop playing my song. No thanks, Brendon Urie, Panic! At The Disco & company,” he tweeted.

In a second tweet, Urie addressed “Everyone Else,” urging them to “vote this monster out” and added a link to help people get registered to vote.

“Dear Everyone Else, Donald Trump represents nothing we stand for. The highest hope we have is voting this monster out in November.”

“Donald Trump represents nothing we stand for. The highest hope we have is voting this monster out in November. ” Since the left stands for violence, assault, arson, murder, killing babies, beating up old people, stealing, destroying people’s homes, destroying businesses yeah, they’re correct. President Donald Trump stands for none of that.

WJ:

As the presidential election nears, celebrities across the nation have been voicing their disapproval for President Trump more than normal.

Last week, rock-and-roll legend Bruce Springsteen criticized Trump on his SiriusXM show, and most recently, pop-rock band Panic! at the Disco’s Brendon Urie voiced his opinions on the president.

Following Trump’s rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Tuesday evening, Urie discovered that the band’s hit song “High Hopes” was played during the event.

Urie published a strongly-worded tweet aimed at Trump and his campaign that same night. More

Funny how these musicians sell-outs get mad when people buy the rights to use their music. Did Brendon Urie consider that this is the first time many Americans have ever heard of him?

Continue Reading

Politics

BREAKING: Biden’s Staff Leaked Who The Campaign Is Vetting For Cabinet Positions… Here They Are!

Published

on

By

Team Trump: Joe Biden’s staff leaked who the campaign is vetting for cabinet positions!

Continue Reading

Politics

Michael Flynn Victory: Federal Appeals Court Rules District Judge Must Drop Charges

A huge win for Michael Flynn!

Published

on

By

A federal appeals court today ordered a lower court to allow the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to be dismissed, as requested by the Justice Department.

The abrupt ending came in a 2-1 ruling and order from judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

BI:

A three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, ordered the federal judge overseeing the case against Michael Flynn to dismiss the prosecution on Wednesday, marking another big twist for the most high-profile former Donald Trump official to face criminal charges from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court also overturned US District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s decision to bring in a retired federal judge and veteran prosecutor to argue against the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s case. Sullivan had scheduled a July 16 hearing to weigh whether or not to toss out the case against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser.

The appeals court ruled that Sullivan does not have the authority to prolong Flynn’s prosecution or examine the Justice Department’s motivation for wanting to drop the case.

“This is not the unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified,” Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump-appointed judge, wrote in the majority opinion. Rao was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

The appeals court’s decision is a major victory for the former national security adviser, whose legal team has argued for months that the government  unfairly targeted him for political reasons. More

The DC Court of Appeals in NOT a bastion of conservatism. They did the right thing. Good for them. That is what Judge Emmet Sullivan gets for being an activist judge instead of an impartial one. Now it’s time to start the process to remove Judge Sullivan for abuse of power and political bias.

Continue Reading

Politics

Laura Loomer Drops Truth Bomb On Democrat’s Plans To Defund Our Police

Published

on

By

Laura Loomer Drops Truth Bomb On Democrat’s Plans To Defund Our Police

Laura Loomer is about to release her first campaign ad telling the truth about the Democrat’s plans to defund our police.

Her goal is to get this video in front of all 136,000 Republicans and 158,000 independents within the next few days – THREE TIMES. To do that, she needs to raise $21,975 in the next 48 hours.

Please donate to help Laura win this!

Florida Republican congressional candidate Laura Loomer is surging ahead of Nancy Pelosi’s puppet Lois Frankel. Why? Because Americans want Law & Order while Democrats want total chaos!

Continue Reading

Politics

Capital Hill Autonomous Zone Beefs Up Border Wall, Deports Conservative Visitors

This all sounds a little…fascist…doesn’t it?

Published

on

Something strange is occurring in Seattle, and it is quickly becoming the talk of the nation.

In the Capital Hill district of the Washington State capital, police were forced to abandon the 13th Precinct some days ago, during hearty demonstrations spawned from the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police.  In their absence, protesters took control of approximately six city blocks, renaming the area the “Capital Hill Autonomous Zone”, and warning visitors that they would be “leaving the USA” as they stepped into Free Cap Hill.

And while this quasi-secession appears to be led by the far left, they are seemingly resorting to some fairly “fascist” tactics…at least by their own standards.

Seattle, Washington’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) — formed by anarchists, Antifa members, and Black Lives Matter activists — has set up a border wall surrounding its perimeters and is seemingly conducting ‘deportations’.

CHAZ, a six-square block autonomous zone, has clear and precise borders made up of mostly vehicle barriers and various forms of fencing.

Photos from CHAZ show the border controls:

A sign is seen on a barrier at an entrance to the so-called “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” on June 10, 2020 in Seattle, Washington. (David Ryder/Getty Images)

Barriers are seen on a street leading to the Seattle Police Departments East Precinct on June 9, 2020 in Seattle, Washington. (David Ryder/Getty Images)

A protester uses a scope on top of a barricade to look for police approaching the newly created Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in Seattle, Washington on June 11, 2020. (JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images)

Furthermore, there appears to be an issue with free speech within the CHAZ.

On Thursday, reporter Julio Rosas captured a moment where CHAZ occupants kicked out a man who said he was a pro-life activist and had been live-streaming from inside the autonomous zone.

The man was taunted by a mob as he was kicked out. The process was far less technical and impartial than the deportation process of the United States federal government.

Protesters in other US cities have also begun to consider creating their own “autonomous zones”, including in Nashville, Tennessee.

Continue Reading

Politics

Next Trump Rally’s Date and Location Offends Kamala Harris

The White House has pushed back against the suggestion that the timing and the location were purposeful. 

Published

on

Despite the risk that still exists due to coronavirus, President Trump is itching to get back out on the campaign trail.  This is where he excels.  It’s his comfort zone.  The opposite could not be truer for his opponent in 2020, either, which means that the Trump campaign is almost certainly relying on these tour de force performances to put distance between these candidates.

In Tulsa, on Friday, June 19th, Trump will return to the stage, much to the chagrin of his loyal base.

Kamala Harris, however, is not at all amused.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) torched President Trump on Thursday over the president’s plan to hold a campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Juneteenth.

In a tweet, Harris linked to a Los Angeles Times story that noted that Trump’s June 19 rally would take place in a city that was the site of a racist riot and massacre in 1921.

“This isn’t just a wink to white supremacists—he’s throwing them a welcome home party,” the senator tweeted.

June 19th, also known as Juneteenth, is a day that many Americans celebrate the end of slavery, as it corresponds with the day that the last slaves in Texas were read the emancipation proclamation back in 1865.

The White House has pushed back against the suggestion that the timing and the location were purposeful.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Rally Attendees Will Sign COVID-19 Liability Agreement Before Event

Published

on

President Trump will be returning to full-throated campaigning in just a weeks’ time out in Oklahoma, and at a time in which much of the nation is again concerned about coronavirus.

In several states, the numbers aren’t looking good.  Thanks to Americans’ generally annoyed take on COVID-19, and public gatherings for Memorial Day and protest, cases of the novel coronavirus are on the rise in several parts of the country.

Given the situation, President Trump’s team will be asking attendees at the upcoming Tulsa rally to sign a special waiver.

The sign-up page for tickets to President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa next week includes something that hasn’t appeared ahead of previous rallies: a disclaimer noting that attendees “voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19” and agree not to hold the campaign or venue liable should they get sick.

Trump’s reelection campaign announced Thursday that the president’s next “Make America Great Again” rally will be held June 19 at the BOK Center.

The intent of the waiver was quite clear.

At the bottom of the registration page for tickets to the upcoming Trump campaign rally is a disclaimer notifying attendees that “by clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present.”

“By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury,” the notice states.
President Trump recently sparred with the Governor of North Carolina over health-related restrictions he was placing on the Republican National Convention, with the war of words eventually causing the RNC to move out of North Carolina to an as-of-yet-unknown location.
Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend