Home » Posts tagged 'Bill of Rights'

Tag Archives: Bill of Rights

A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism

Probing Christian Nationalism

The mainstream media now uses the words “Christian nationalism” as a political cudgel against Republicans.  Rob Reiner, the former “meathead” of Archie Bunker fame produced a documentary against his caricature of “Christian nationalism.”  The left labels new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a “Christian Nationalist.”  This last week, Politico writer, Heidi Przybyla, made news herself with this statement on television, attacking Christian Nationalism:

The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God.  . . . The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them.

Apparently this is news on the left, that people believe that rights come from God.  This was, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence (1776) by the apparently Christian Nationalist, Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Not long ago in 2018, professing conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, wrote something akin to Przybyla in National Review:

Let’s begin with some somewhat unusual assertions for these pages.

Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. God didn’t give us these things, or anything else. We stumbled into modernity accidentally, not by any divine plan.

Christian Discussion of Christian Nationalism

As much as the left picks Christian Nationalism as a talking point, Christians are discussing it.  Here are important books in the debate:

The Case for Christian Nationalism, by Stephen Wolfe

Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide For Taking Dominion And Discipling Nations, by Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker

Mere Christendom: The Case for Bringing Christianity Back into Modern Culture – Leading by Faith to Convert Secularism, by Douglas Wilson

Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, by Scott Aniol

Also several have written many articles on Christian Nationalism, both pro and con.  I understand the rise of the terminology.  I’ve written posts here with a consideration of Christian Nationalism, but the very idea of consideration drew fierce opposition for even broaching the subject.  Never have I said I agreed with Christian Nationalism.  However, I have questions that did not and do not relate to the popularization of the concept of Christian Nationalism.

Basis For Considering Christian Nationalism

My questions and then thoughts, perhaps answers, arise from the following.

One

One, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom.  The first sentence of the Bill of Rights starts with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Analysis sees two clauses: (1)  no establishment of state religion, and (2) free exercise of religion.  I contend there is already the establishment of a state religion and that free exercise is at least abridged.  The latter proceeds from the former.  I like saying, “If there is a state religion, then it matters which one.”  There is a state religion and it is against God, not even for God.  Everyone does already subjugate to the anti-God state religion.

Two

Two, if the United States functions according to God-given rights, then it should not ignore the one and true God.  All truth comes from God and it is a lie when the state will not acknowledge this.  Going back to number one, it is a religion that rejects this, not neutrality.

The vacuum from great desire not to establish state religion acquiesces to false state religion.  God is truth.  The Bible is truth.  The one God and His Word, the Bible, are not some tier of religion, which is separate from reality.  This is our Father’s world.  A nation cannot and will not function according to truth and laws without the acknowledgment of the true God.

Three

Three, God wants application of His Word to everything.  The Bible is sufficient.  God wants application of scripture to employment, to culture, to art, to government, yes, to everything and everywhere.  To occur, this must be open, welcome, and purposeful.  It should not be a process incessantly hidden or camouflaged, so as not to reveal its occurrence.  Let God be God.

Four

Four, free exercise requires openness in conversation about everything in God’s Word.  It requires quoting scripture like scripture is in fact authority.  This means saying, we’re going to do this because God wants us to.  God founded government.  It isn’t matter and motion.  Truly discussing rights, since they do come from God, requires including God in the discussion.

Opening the Can of Worms

I believe I can give more than the above four, but that’s enough to percolate thinking and expressing on this matter.  The closing of the Constitution of the United States does not mean the end of discussion on the Constitution.  It is not inspired.  It is not God’s Word.  Did it fail in the first amendment and really throughout the Constitution because of that failure?

Before the completion of the United State Constitution, Hamilton and Madison spent hundreds of pages discussing these ideas.  Did that yield a perfect masterpiece?  Is any kind of correction over?  Questioning it is not akin to challenging the Word of God.  I believe it is just the opposite.  The Bible requires someone to prove it and even go back to the drawing board.

More to Come

Democrats Most Astonishing Hate of Democracy

The Symbol of the Reichstag in Germany

A pivotal moment in Hitler’s rise in Germany came from the Nazi burning of the Reichstag.  They started the fire, put it out, and then blamed it on the Communists.  Democrats in the United States steal this act in a campaign to destroy democracy.  The Nazis convinced a large portion of the German population that the Communists burned down their Parliament building.  Even their courts wouldn’t disagree.

The Democrats, which have the related word “democracy” imbedded in their name, similarly point the finger at Trump as an authoritarian or totalitarian.  His policies looked and still look exponentially more democratic than the finger pointers.  He would like the government out of most of the business of Americans.  Evidence abounds for this, but let me first take a small step back.

Democracy

The United States isn’t a democracy.  James Madison in Numbers 10 and 14 of the Federalist Papers makes this point quite well.  But let’s set that aside for now.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.  A website called “Principles of Democracy” writes:

Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.

Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.

Freedom of Speech and Democracy

Wikipedia for “Freedom of Speech” reads:

Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy.

Democrats censor their opposition more than anyone and with unending examples.  They are similar to the presence of Islam in any country.  While Moslems are in a small minority, they cry for human rights, but the moment they take charge with less than a majority, they eliminate unfavorable voices.

Oligarchy followed democracy in Greece.  Democrats control a vast majority of the public square in America.  I include in that schools, media, and even government.  They gladly censor opposing viewpoints.  The Democrat controlled institutions don’t allow the truth of the Bible.  Unless Christians privately fund their own museum, you won’t see a creation account in public.  Democrats label many biblical truths, “hate speech.”

Censorship

Democrats use both hard and soft censorship.  By hard censorship, I mean official and legal disallowance of a place and opportunity to speak.  It may be the loss of a job, because the Democrats don’t hear a statement of support for same sex activity.  That turns the non-speaker, who would like to say something against the activity but doesn’t, into enemy status.

By soft censorship, I mean an avalanche of public repudiation and ridicule until speakers do not receive opportunities to speak.  It’s also moderating who speaks.  The establishment offers a phony, a fraud, as the representative of the alternative point of view, who goes along with the official or permitted position.  Very little to nothing comes in a way of supporting the alternative position.

A historic label for soft censorship is the “kangaroo court.”  The J6 Committee is a good example of this, but they abound in every state in either blue states, districts, or regions.  They also exist in red areas with blue strongholds.  The committee cherry picks their own rubber stamps to represent opposition.  Opposition is actually major support with a fake label of opposition.  I would hope everyone knows this, but I’m afraid it fools just enough of the disengaged.

Other Examples

The J6 Committee parallels with the internet.  You read about the “algorhythms.”  The oligarchs of the tech industry force opposition or non-supportive speech into an uninhabited hinterland.  They are whole national forests of trees that fall and no one hears, so they don’t make a noise.  Only approved speech moves into a hearing zone.  Yes, people published something, but no one is reading, because no one is seeing.

The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example too.  I say these are just examples of what is now normal.  Any supportive tweet or internet entry of the laptop goes unseen, censored as disinformation.  The censorship itself is the disinformation, much like the Russian collusion operation.  I think this is the least of it though.  It’s a censorship industry.

The industry removes the bad news about the favored issue or person.  Right now, it has the ability to project a pro-Hamas experience, despite a relatively powerful coalition for Israel.  Pro-Palestinian protestors crowd the White House and knock down a protective fence with little coverage from the media.  The industry does not parallel or hearken to anything insurrectionist.

Massive Scale Elimination of Democratic Values

As I write on this subject, the most massive scale about which I speak is in education, where for years, the Bible, God, righteousness, and creation and the like are kept out of the massive state school complex even in red states.  No one can take a male headship position in anything close to a public square.  Can you imagine a professor at a major university who takes open biblical views?  It doesn’t happen except in private.  You must pay to hear the truth told.

I would agree that the Bill of Rights and especially the first amendment is the essence of democratic values.  When do you read anything from the left defending free speech anymore?  Democrats don’t write about their love for the first amendment. The closest is a totalitarian support of smut for small children in public schools and genderless bathrooms.  These are not about the protection of speech or opportunity to have a voice.

Pent-Up Voices

The J6 crowd came to a rally and then walked to the capital out of a long pent-up frustration of censorship.  Yes, better means of expression exist.  The high percentage of silencing from the left came to a logger head.  That group that day did wrong things.  This is not what-aboutism.  I see that day as the equivalent of throwing snow balls at the Old State House in Boston in 1770.  The censorship industry, I’m afraid, because of its reaction, has not seen the worst.

We could hope that people care enough to do something about the actual attack on democracy from the Democrat Party.  So far, I see it as a peaceful embrace of those who would allow free speech.  It seems most represented by an ability to oppose masks and vaccinations.  Still, do positions exist for scientists with an opposing view?  Are there safe places of employment in hospitals and in medical schools with an alternate view?  I’m saying this is just representative, because the worst relates to far more important issues of truth.

Democrats have a burning Reichstag type hatred of democracy.  The Nazis opposed burning the Reichstag.  But they burned it.  The Democrats don’t mind burning everything down to get their way.  They don’t care if you vote or not.  They don’t even want you able to say what they don’t want to hear.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives