8 thoughts on “The Christian and Politics

  1. “Many outside Christianity (more specifically, belligerent atheists) peddle the repressive idea that a believer’s place in society ought to be severely restricted to the four walls of the church.”

    I can’t speak for all atheists but I find it ironic you use the word repressive as an act you attribute to atheists, who are probably the most repressed in the category of “Religious Affiliation”. I know you meant your comment towards what you perceive as a restriction. I don’t subscribe to the opinion that a believers place in society be restricted to the four walls of the church, that is an exaggeration on your part but I do agree that as a non-Christian, why should I be held accountable for laws based on Christianity? Why should you be subject to Sharia Laws? or Sephardic laws?

    “In truth, secularists advance this hogwash because they wish to marginalize Christians from all political participation.”…. “Secularists would rather not be reminded and convicted about the ramifications of their immoral inclinations”

    I see you shifted from Atheist to Secularists. A secularist can be of any religious affiliation, they just understand that our laws are created and need to apply to all people, regardless of the religion they follow. As noted above, would a Christian be happy with Sharia law? …and as for your suggestion that “secularists” need to be reminded and convicted(?!?!) about their immoral inclinations… as they say “Pot meet Kettle”

    The Johnson Amendment prevents all 501(c)(3) not-for-profits, no just churches, from political activity. This prevents money being funneled through them to influence elections. Funneling money through a 501(c)(3) would circumvent election laws. It doesn’t prevent citizens from voting their conscience.


    1. Your comment doesn’t deserve a reply due to how faulty and illogical it is. However, in the interest of showcasing the truth to our readership, I’ll answer your spurious claims.

      Firstly, presenting atheists as “repressed” simply because they supposedly aren’t represented within a particular demographic category is downright stupid and false. (Many organizations, such as Pew Research, keep tabs on the amount of atheists within society.) Your description also smacks of victimhood/identity politics and demonstrates you have no idea what true repression is (or quite possibly, you understand the meaning and attempt to reduce its definition so as to present atheists as a class needing special protection and privileges). Additionally, you insult my intelligence by demagogically claiming that persecution of believers within the country and abroad is something I “perceive” incorrectly. Consider that in places like China, Sudan, Turkey, Vietnam, Russia, etc., Biblical Christians are constantly arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed for their faith. What about cases where Christian bakers, photographers, florists, college pupils and even some government officials within the US are politically and legally persecuted for acting in a manner that is consistent with Biblical principles and contrary to legislation that is inherently anti-Christian? Jack Philips ring a bell? Barronelle Stuztman? Aaron and Melissa Klein? Kim Davis? And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

      Secondly, I do not “exaggerate” when I claim that many secularists attempt to restrict Christian participation in politics. One prime example is the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization headed by militant atheists Annie Gaylor and her husband Dan Barker. They incessantly threaten individuals, organizations and churches with potentially debilitating and speech-squelching legal action simply because said entities undertake Christian activities within the public square – all under the guise of a twisted interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, “separation of church and state”. Of note, they sued the IRS in 2012 because the feds did not arbitrarily restrict the ability of clergy and Christian groups to endorse political candidates and encourage congregants to vote. What is this if not an active attempt at political suppression by atheists/secularists? Even your own comments prove my salient point.

      You claim not to support the notion that Christians should keep to the four walls of the church. However, when you rhetorically ask me if persons such as yourself should be held accountable to laws that are influenced by Christianity, you are implicitly admitting support for an overturning of the US’s cultural identity, which includes a political culture that is historically, directly and primarily influenced by Christians. Hence, you prefer less Christian participation in politics. In essence, you are proving what I wrote! Also, if you don’t wish to live under such an arrangement, why not move to another country that is more secular in its political identity? Staying and joining the fray that works to overturn our heritage is rather subversive. Lastly within this point, equating the American system of governance with Sharia, for example, is disingenuous and offensive. You know why and an explanation would be infantile.

      I didn’t “shift”. You may need to access a proper dictionary. The term “secular” has traditionally been understood to mean anything having to do with the present age or world and not religious matters. Hence, my synonymous and interchangeable use of the terms atheist/secular. When you claim that secularists can be of any religious affiliation, it is oxymoronic. Also, when I employ the term “convicted”, I use it in a Biblical sense, meaning the act of convincing via truthful argumentation, not in a judicial sense. My use of the term doesn’t indicate a desire to place a theocracy within the US. Your malicious suspicion is unfounded. Besides, the majority of this blog’s readership are Biblical Christians and they understand my use of the term.

      Lastly, your description of the Johnson Amendment is a dissembling attempt to diminish its restrictiveness. It is wholly unconstitutional and a suppression of free speech. Just because an organization isn’t taxed, it doesn’t mean that their ability to speak freely should be censored. The people who belong to these organizations still pay individual taxes. Thus they have a right to speak. Besides, the supposedly altruistic reason you quote to justify its existence is part apocryphal and part propaganda. The only reason it was passed was because then senator Lydon B. Johnson desired to silence certain non-profits in Texas that worked in favor of his primary opponent.

      I encourage you to address the inconsistencies in your argumentation. Your words only exhibit them all the more.


  2. It’s quite ironic that it’s okay for you to refer to Christians as repressed and you are making one big political statement and then turn around and accuse me of victimhood/identity politics. AND then you proceed to use 3/4 of the paragraph to double down on what you accused me of doing! You do realize that Atheists have been persecuted or even put to death because their non-believe in a god was considered heretical, right? Don’t close one eye to avoid seeing what religion has done to others.

    The US Government was created as a secular institution, a nation of secular laws. You can read the federalist papers, Jefferson’s Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom and James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”. And no, being religious but still holding that the Government should be secular is not an oxymoron. The Federal Government at the time of it’s founding did not want to get involved in matters of religion and as such, pushed matters of religion on states to decide. That’s why you will see the Fed does not require a “religious test” but some states still have laws on their books that only “Protestants..” can run for office.

    Our Federal Government was created so that we don’t have an official “religion”, the Government does not get involved in matters of religion and religion does not have say on Government matters. It is and always has been considered Secular. That does not mean the majority of people in America are not religious, that does not mean religious people cannot run for Government. Our laws are SUPPOSE to be secular but that does not stop those of any religion to guide law.

    However, when the law states two people can get married, a government employee cannot deny them their rights because of their religious belief. They must uphold the secular laws of the state or fed. You said if I didn’t like it “why not move to another country”… lol. If she wants to hold people to her religious beliefs, she picked the wrong job!

    I was spot on in regards to my comment of Sharia/Sephardic laws. The population of followers of Islam is growing. Imagine for a moment that they had the majority and like you, wanted laws that that were based on their religion. How would you like to follow a law based on someone else’s religion? If that bothers you, just think of what the rest of the country feels about having to follow a Christian law. This is exactly why we are a nation of secular laws. They are not “Atheist” laws, they are laws that apply to everyone regardless of religion.

    I can understand you are passionate about your religion but that does not mean everyone else is.


    1. Advice: When debating important matters, stay on point and do not deflect. Your reply is case and point.

      Firstly, My description of Biblical Christians being the singularly most persecuted group throughout the Western world (a historical reality) for centuries isn’t hyperbolic nor indicative of my subtly peddling special privileges for us as a group. Note that the gist of my article and reply to you is a denunciation of the exclusion of Christians from political discourse and how many undertake this marginalization in the modern age via propaganda, legal and judicial means. If you can’t see the correlation or refuse to acknowledge it, that is your problem. Also, you may want to research some factual history. It was the Catholic Church that persecuted anyone who wasn’t an avowed Catholic. Read about the Waldensians, Albigensians and the Huguenots, groups of Biblical Christians who were killed simply because they refused to acknowledge the so-called legitimacy of the papacy.

      Secondly, do not presume to lecture me about the American Founding. I know full well what the Founders created – a constitutional republic based on the rule of law – laws that were in many ways inspired by Christian ethics. Here are a few quotes:

      “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

      “I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.” – Gouverneur Morris

      And these are only a sampling. You are correct when you assert that the government at the Founding was designed to remove itself from national religious impositions (like in England, for example), making it a “secular” entity in this respect. However, this arrangement wasn’t designed so that Christians wouldn’t be able to influence governmental decisions – the very thing militant secularists/atheists desire. (Thomas Jefferson’s “wall” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists only operated one way.)

      As it pertains to the Kim Davis incident; when you claim “that a government employee cannot deny them their rights because of their religious belief”, you are, in essence, saying that the supposed rights of the homosexuals that sued Kim Davis, trump Davis’ freedom to live according to her religious beliefs. I didn’t know that a person’s rights are suddenly abridged when they start working for the government. And before you claim that I am implying that religious freedom is greater that the “right” of people to marry, understand that the government doesn’t have the right to define or grant licenses for marriage. This is because marriage isn’t a government creation. The institution is God-created. Hence, He defines its parameters. (By the way, I find it curious that the very Founders you cite would have been vehemently against government defining, redefining and granting marriage licenses in order to accommodate the normalization of sodomy in America.)

      No, you were not “spot on” in your rhetorical questioning about Sharia and Sephardic laws. It’s more an issue of faulty reasoning. I already clarified that I do not want a theocracy. What I want is a preservation of and adherence to the principles that influenced the Founding – the very same principles you wish to see abolished in the name of their being too Christian. Comparing what Conservatives wish to conserve in the US to the tyrannical Sharia is downright malicious.

      Lastly, the last sentence you wrote proves everything I wrote in my article and in my first reply to you.


      1. If you *understand* the foundation of our laws, then what is the issue with it’s secular laws? Do you not like that they are secular and you would like them to adhere to your religious beliefs? This is where my comment on all other religious law comes in. Should we base our laws on the Old Testament? I’m sure you know that our laws are not based solely on Christianity, the facade on the Surprise Court shows just about every avenue that our laws come from. Religion, Philosophy and common law.

        …and in all the cases you cited, when there is a conflict between two parties, what happens? It is decided by the courts. Should ones religious convictions always be held in higher esteem by the courts? No!.. of course that is up for the court to decide. You may feel it should be up to God to decide but that is not how our laws are setup. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips. In fact, Colorado had 3 other cases prior to Jack Phillips and they rules in favor of the “baker”. Do you think it was right for Southern Baptists who spoke out against Civil Rights?

        You brought up a few instances where one sect of Christianity was persecuted by the Catholic Church but there were many different sects at odds with each other in our founding. Since you are familiar with the founding, then maybe you are familiar with the infighting? And the persecution of religious people BY religious people. Even to this day, religions are still at odds with one another. But the very fact that you point out persecution by Catholics… but your original blog is blaming secularism and atheists.

        Marriage is God-created? You may not want to tell that to Buddhists and other non-Christian religions. You may want to research the church’s involvement with that. That happened in the second century.

        I’m glad you don’t want a theocracy, neither do I.. but when I say it, you have an issue with it. The constitution was meant to be a living – breathing document that was suppose to change with times. Our founding fathers, if they lived in today’s day and age would see a very different world, we cannot assume that they would write the same exact document as we see today. Much has changed in the world since their time. Civil Rights, Equal Rights. One things for sure, if you don’t want Sephardic laws… not sure what type of Christian you are.


      2. I am not going to engage in a semantic war with you. Besides you continue to move the goalposts of the debate. Why don’t you answer with respect to the quotes I forwarded to you about how the majority of the Founders declared that our system of government is inherently designed for a moral and religious people? You haven’t answered with respect to Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. You haven’t furnished proof about where people are given the “right” to marry. Answer me substantively instead of jumping around like Crash Bandicoot.

        I furnished proof that our political heritage is inherently Judeo-Christian and yet “secular” in the sense that these laws do not impose religious belief on the populace. When you rhetorically ask me why I’m unhappy about our secular laws, you attempt to present me as theocrat, when I’ve clearly stated that I’m seeking to conserve both the laws and political arrangement of the Founding. Your sophistry attempts to make people like me look like we’re antagonistic to our heritage. The truth is that persons like yourself have a bone to pick with our history. People like me submit to it and wish to preserve it for future generations. History supports my assertions, not yours.

        “Should ones religious convictions always be held in higher esteem by the courts?” When you ask this rhetorical question, you imply that you have an issue with the First Amendment. One can’t be a strict constitutionalist and ask a contradictory question like this.

        Christian “sects”? You obviously have no knowledge of proper theology. (By the way, infighting between different groups who claim absolute authority over theological matters is nothing new. It’s just that the Catholic Church has been the one to historically gain the upper hand by trampling every other.) Biblical Christianity doesn’t promote different denominations, “sects” or dogmas. There’s only One Faith, One God, One Savior, Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 4:5) But I guess you already knew that, historian and theologian.

        As it pertains to marriage history, you show your ignorance once again. Judaism is the world’s oldest “religion” and can claim supremacy as having received the Law (10 Commandments and subsequent laws) and having provided the history of the creation of the world (Torah), wherein marriage is firstly defined. By the way, when you state that Buddhism and other non-Christian religions would take issue with my definition, you are inherently giving them greater weight in the matter of marriage definition. What makes them more correct? You’ve made a very apocryphal and subjective claim since it fits your belief system.

        Lastly, the Constitution isn’t a “living, breathing document”. Such a phrase is childish. You also demonstrate your Marxist credentials with this phrase. Why revisit American history earlier in a frivolous attempt to disprove my claims and in your last paragraph suddenly pivot, presuming that the Founders would desire for our system of government and social institutions to change according to modern secularist whims? Why even ratify a Constitution with absolute words? You want both sides of the coin! You cannot presume that the Founders would be of your persuasion. Hence, you are projecting your views unto the Founders, when they were more than explicit about what they thought and believed – and the majority were not secularists (save Ben Franklin and Jefferson).

        One thing is sure, you have an erroneous idea of what it is to be a Christian. You may not know what type of Christian I am, but don’t presume to know and make assertions without knowing. That’s the epitome of arrogance. Inquire before making assertions.

        This will be the last answer I give on the subject. My posture on the matter couldn’t be clearer. Find some other blog to troll.


  3. It’s funny, In my last response, I went back over the back and forth and wanted to address some of the items I missed but you claiming I am moving the goal posts? I’ve stayed quite focused. So let me focus on each paragraph you replied with….

    1. Why don’t I address your quotes? The problem with quotes is, one can easily quote mine and find quotes to serve their argument. This is why I pointed you to the Federalist Papers, Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” and Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”. Instead of quote mining, you can read the full text and get a full picture about religion in our Founding. I mean, we can have a quote war if you want:

    “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson

    but I would rather educate myself, as I had, by reading as many of the founding documents as I can. The Danbury Letter… Have you read the entirety of the letters? Have you read the draft? Have you read Madison’s letter… I hate to quote mine “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state.”

    However, let’s get to your point “However, this arrangement wasn’t designed so that Christians wouldn’t be able to influence governmental decisions”…. EXACTLY! Christian’s have a voice like everyone else. As I stated in one of my replies, they can vote their conscience, they can run for public office and they can influence governmental decisions. What they cannot do is create laws like “Everyone must go to church on Sunday” and they cannot impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the country. Are you familiar with this?:

    2. “I furnished proof that our political heritage is inherently Judeo-Christian”?! You did? Strange that you didn’t refer to Judeo until I mentioned Sephardic Laws. In fact, you said it was faulty reasoning… but now for the first time, you are bringing up Judeo law! Classic! Anyway, You may have missed where I said that our laws have various influences (Religious, Philosophical and Common Law) as shown on the facade of the Supreme Court (of course my spell check changed it to Surprise Court, lol ). So we are in agreement that we are a nation of Secular laws and we agree that we don’t want a theocracy. Great!

    3. Was a reference to the cake baker, the government employee who wouldn’t allow a marriage license…. I think I covered this by saying when “when there is a conflict between two parties, what happens? It is decided by the courts.”. If the law states that two people can get a marriage license and someone refuses to give them a marriage license based on their religious conviction… there is a conflict. That’s why I asked if someones religious convictions should trump the law.

    4. “Christian “sects”? You obviously have no knowledge of proper theology.”, Really? That was a common word used by our founders in reference to the various Christian religions.
    “Were I to be the founder of a new sect, I would call them Apiarians, and, after the example of the bee, advise them to extract the honey of every sect. my fundamental. principle would be … that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.” -Thomas Jefferson

    5. So, what you are saying, since the Torah defines religion, that is the source of it? So from the creation of the world to approx 1312 BC, there was no marriage or union? Was there no Hindu marriages? Mesopotamian?

    In European nations, Marriage was a civil institution until around 5AD when the Christians church started to get interested in the topic of marriage (Augustine). It wasn’t until the 12th Century that it became a Sacrament in the Catholic church.

    “You’ve made a very apocryphal and subjective claim since it fits your belief system.”
    That is exactly what you are doing! I have offered some historic perspectives, it is very subjective. I can only tell you what history says about marriage. You are claiming to know!!! You are making a claim that fits your biblical belief but history shows that it is NOT the case.

    6. I noticed when something goes against your belief, you are very condescending with your answers. I’ve pretty much ignored it because usually when one does not have a good argument, they try to undercut others by resorting to this behavior. I actually feel a bit smug. You resort to many ad-hominems but based on your responses, I bet you have never thoroughly investigated the background documents on the discussion of the actual constitution. There is a difference between what one believes and what the facts of the matter are. Go Read, it will probably take you a month to go through the documents, get back to me then before you claim to know the constitution. For people to claim they are “Constitutionalists” but show a total lack of understanding of it… it is akin to people who state they are Christian and don’t even know their own bible.

    It’s a shame you took such an attitude. It’s probably the reason why you don’t get many likes or comments on your blog. And your against Yoga! lol, the grand conspiracy theory!


    1. I was beginning to compose a proper reply to this latest comment, but it’s a waste of time since you’re simply trolling. Anyone can see that I have attempted to debate you substantively. (By the way, if I’m only responding using ad hominems, how could it be that, as you acknowledge, I’ve cited incidents, history and quotes in an attempt to prove my points? Also, you wrote: “It’s probably the reason why you don’t get many likes or comments on your blog. And your against Yoga! lol, the grand conspiracy theory!” As you wrote me earlier: Kettle, meet Pot!)

      You have a blog. Write to your heart’s desire there. Yet as for this space, you’re attempting to maliciously contradict what I write here by using deflections, misrepresentations and half-truths. Goodbye and don’t expect future comments to appear here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s