Liberals at war with Christianity

War on Christianity

In case you’re not into celebrity news or don’t listen to leftist “news” sources, you should know that HGTV’s “Fixer Upper” stars, Chip and Joanna Gaines, are under fire from inclusive, open-minded liberals for the unforgivable secular sin of attending a Christian church which actually believes what the Bible says about homosexuality.  Gasp!

And in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past eight years, there is a war against Christianity in America.  It appears that’s news to a lot of Americans, though.  Just about the only people who really believe such a claim are Christians themselves.  American liberals (or should I just say Marxists?) deny any such war exists, despite clear evidence to the contrary and the obvious public contempt they display for Christians.  Unfortunately, even people on the right of the political spectrum sometimes dispute the claim, making statements such as (and I’m paraphrasing here), “A few scattered instances of law suits against Christians do not indicate a war.  Besides, we’re not exactly burning people in cages.”

The last half of such comments seem to indicate that even people on the right have unconsciously set a very high bar for judging persecution against a particular religion in a country that was founded, ironically enough, on freedom of religion.  The instances of persecution are hardly few or scattered are advancing stage by stage; from stereotyping to vilification to marginalization to criminalization (through litigation) to persecution, and finally to executions.  Rarely does a nation move from freedom to oppression overnight, and American Christians are deep into the stages of persecution.  We can proceed safely no further.

Merriam-Webster defines war as:

  1. 2 a :  a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism  b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

I have to ask just how far we, as a nation, are willing to let things deteriorate before we take notice or take action.  The dismissiveness of our fellow countrymen to the pleas of Christians in legal and moral distress is disheartening at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

But, for the moment, I’ll play devil’s advocate (appropriately enough!) and submit that perhaps the word war, considering current domestic circumstances, is a bit agitated – although we nevertheless blithely throw it around to describe other so-called injustices, such as “The War on Poverty” or “The War on Drugs” or “The War on AIDS,” etc., even though nobody is getting sued, thrown in jail, fired or threatened in those wars.

But if there is not a war, there certainly is a conflict between our secular society and Christianity.  There clearly is hostility from temperate, open-minded, liberals who have an inclusive history of verbally and legally assaulting Christians and their beliefs.  There exists a clash of ideals between Christians and liberals who booed God during the Democratic convention.  And let’s not forget about Hillary Clinton who has stated that, “deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”  (Thank God she didn’t get elected!)  There definitely are battles to keep Christians quiet in the public sphere.  Christian values are openly attacked, and challenged and contested.  If nothing else, the enemies of public Christianity are entrenched in their bigotry.

In other words, if there is not an actual war being waged, then why are the attempts at silencing the Christian faith so martial in their character?  Why is the battle line frequently the oft-cited but poorly defended so-called “separation of church and state”?  And why does this separation work only in one direction; that is to say, top-down government discrimination against Christianity?

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia clearly understood that the Establishment Clause contained in the 1st Amendment does not exclude religion from public life or justify discrimination against it.  When a 5-judge majority ruled in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) that the Establishment Clause prohibits religious invocations at public school graduations, he wrote in dissent:

“The reader has been told much in this case about the personal interest of Mr. Weisman and his daughter, and very little about the personal interests on the other side. They are not inconsequential. Church and state would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s room. For most believers it is not that, and has never been. Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as individuals, because they believe in the “protection of divine Providence,” as the Declaration of Independence put it, not just for individuals but for societies; because they believe God to be, as Washington’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation put it, the “Great Lord and Ruler of Nations.” One can believe in the effectiveness of such public worship, or one can deprecate and deride it. But the longstanding American tradition of prayer at official ceremonies displays with unmistakable clarity that the Establishment Clause does not forbid the government to accommodate it.”

You see, there is good reason to describe what is happening in America as war, because “hostile assault to challenge, attack and silence public Christianity” is a laborious way of saying “at war.”

It is clear even to the most uninterested observer that no similar quest to choke off the influence of other religions exists within our society – not against Judaism, or Taoism, not Buddhism or Hinduism, and (God forbid!) certainly not against Islamism!

Liberals claim to defend freedom of religion, but use Christianity’s disavowal of homosexuality as a wedge to separate people and silence a religion they abhor.  In truth, though, it is moral responsibility that liberals despise.  Christianity teaches that there are moral consequences for sin.  Those consequences are the mortal enemy of liberalism and therefore must be oppressed.

But what of Islam’s condemnation of homosexuality?  Why does it not garner the same malice and active legal commotion from Progressives?  The answer, as we shall see, is two-fold.  First, liberalism, being an ideology that can only survive on a diet of lies and self-delusion, intentionally contorts logic in order to justify its willing ignorance of Islam’s true nature.  Second, liberals are cowards, which is why they must feign ignorance.  Here’s why.

The seminal difference between Islam and Christianity in this case is that Christians merely believe homosexual acts to be sinful, yet still believe homosexuals themselves to be capable of redemption.  Islam, on the other hand, actually calls for gays to be murdered.  There is no atonement in this life nor salvation for them in the next.  That remarkable difference should be acknowledged by leftists but is curtly dismissed.

Here is what the Hadith (one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of Muhammed, and second only to the Koran in defining Islamic jurisprudence) says about gays:

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah), kill the doer and the receiver (emphasis mine).”  And this is but one example of many from the Islamic faith.

That of course would help explain why Leftists choose to launch attacks against only Christian bakers and wedding photographers.  Whereas Christians will merely pray for their opponents, the consequence of challenging Muslims is dire indeed.  Leftists are all too willing to protest against people they know will not harm them only to ignore those people who might actually follow through on their threats.  I know, I know.  What I just said is going to offend some people, so to be fair I suppose I should mention that not all Muslims are violent.  (Although, according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the culture of Islam is inherently violent.  But what would she know?  She was only a Muslim from birth; the victim of female genital mutilation.)  Even so, a disproportionate number of Muslims actually do engage in “lawfare” meant to silence any criticism of their religious practices, support for terrorist organizations around the globe, or their growing refusals to adapt to or assimilate into American culture.  This lawfare works so well, in fact, that Leftists give them a pass on their way to bravely attacking impuissant Christians.  Ooh!  So very courageous!  What this amounts to, in militaristic terms, is a flanking movement around Christianity, with liberal demagogues on the left and dogmatic Muslims on the right.

In my opinion, the very tactic of lawfare that has so successfully insulated Islam from Western and liberal criticism should be the same tactic Christians use to save their religion from the stifling influences of leftist secularism.  Whereas Muslims often create false controversies and hate crimes in order to claim Islamophobia and lay the groundwork for binding legal action, Christians have no such need to fish for excuses as anti-Christianists actively seek them out.  What Christians should be doing is earnestly and relentlessly taking advantage of the legal system which was, lest we forget, originally designed to protect their freedom of religion.

In case you doubt the very real threat Christianity is suffering under, consider the following recent incidents (these are recent only and by no means comprehensive):

A Christian minister in Georgia was fired from his job from the Georgia Department of Public Health after his supervisors became curious about sermons he had delivered on health, marriage, sexuality, world religions, science and creationism.  He was asked to provide copies of his sermons for review and was summarily fired after having been on the job for only a little over one week.  What the state of Georgia is saying in a very public way is that Christians are not allowed their Christian beliefs if they wish to hold government employment.  (cuz, you know, fairness!)  It is also a sneaky way for government to intrude on the pulpit by actively intimidating pastors into toeing a proper political line.  (Can anyone even remember how the German government effectively turned the Protestant church in Nazi Germany into a proxy of the Nazi state?)  Again, this sort of coercion manifests only against Christians in this country.  And this is not the first example of states demanding that pastors turn over their sermons for review.  Hunting down subversives is a skill best left with dictatorships, not pluralistic democracies founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Another example of anti-Christian warfare is the recent case of a VA hospital in Ohio that banned Bibles from its facility following a complaint that one was discovered in a hospital waiting area.  Can you imagine?  The horror!  The unidentified complainant (the power of his conviction apparently so strong that he remains anonymous) wrote a letter to the facility director stating, “Our government is secular, and must remain secular.”  Wrong!  According to the First Amendment to the Constitution, under the Establishment Clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (emphasis mine) of religion…”  It is beyond the absurd to assume a stray Bible is going to end up as the bedrock of a state-sponsored religion or that anyone who sees it is going to be converted against their will.  But the Amendment continues into the Free Exercise clause which says, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  That is to say, that in 16 simple words the Founders clearly stated that while government may not sponsor a religion, it also may not prohibit anyone from carrying out their chosen religious devotions.  But that is precisely what this VA facility did in response to the whining of a petulant primrose.

If I want to conduct a prayer meeting with Bible in hand in this same VA waiting room, the government cannot stop me from doing exactly that.  While the VA’s only proper response would’ve been to surround the same offending Bible with other religious texts so as to soothe the anti-Christianist’s sensitivities, it instead ran scared from an overly irritable snowflake.

Let’s consider another example of the Left’s unyielding siege on Christianity.  A University of California, Merced, psychology professor claimed that white Christian men commit more terrorism on American soil than foreign born Muslims.  Do you understand the implication?  “Christians violent!  Worse than Muslims!  Christianity should be banned.”  Cave man logic – from a “professor” no less.  The perversion of the word terrorism by an educated person is bad enough, but I won’t even spend the effort debunking such an irrational claim except to say that this threadbare narrative only accounts (conveniently) for violence committed post-9/11 (and yet it’s still inaccurate!).  Do you understand the implications of removing 3,000 dead Americans from the calculus?  This professor is just another in a long line of propagandized Progressive twits attempting to advance a fictive meant to silence Christians in America.  Godless liberals, you see, are masters of lies built upon untruths topped with deceits (because they are, after all, Godless).  From a Christian perspective, they are doing the Devil’s work, and only proving the Bible’s truth.

Let’s take a look at yet another Lefty who is bewildered, and therefore threatened, by Christianity.  Professor Catherine M. Wallace of Northwestern University, using (typical) convoluted Leftist “logic,” is attempting to turn the entire anti-Christian treatise into a legal argument by claiming that fundamentalist Christianity is inherently racist.  And racism, when applied as policy, is decidedly illegal.  Unfortunately for Wallace and other liberals, the racism bromide is becoming a bit weathered, having lost much of its meaning due to rabid overuse.  Additionally, Wallace’s appeal to racism shows an utter ignorance of the makeup of the Christian community in America.  And as the author of the article correctly indicates, “In addition, why is Wallace even referring to fundamentalist Christianity as … ‘Christianity’? Hasn’t our president and his administration repeatedly lectured us that “radical Islam” is not actual Islam? Why doesn’t this standard also apply to Christianity?”  Good question!  Find a lawyer!

Next, let’s turn our attention to the Obama administration itself which has blatantly been using a religious test to fill government positions.    The recent WikiLeaks data dumps have revealed that the administration purposefully gave preference to Muslims for top administration jobs, sub-cabinet jobs, and outside agencies, boards and policy committees over Christians, in direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution which states, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States (emphasis mine).”

This kind of hubris from this callous administration isn’t the least bit surprising anymore, especially considering it has admitted thousands of Muslim Syrian refugees, but has only admitted 23 Christians (and has turned away scores more).  Both the religious tests for government positions, as well as the immigration policies of this administration, are meant as a direct challenge to Christianity at a federal level.

So if you’re reading this and thinking to yourself, “This hypocritical Christian doesn’t even understand the god he worships or the book he believes in (after all, what would Jesus do?)”, might I remind you that “He (Jesus) looked around at them (the Pharisees) in anger…deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts…” Mark 3:5  “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there.  He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.” Matthew 21:12  “In your anger do not sin.” Ephesians 4:26

You see, friends, anger is a normal human emotion that God created for us.  Jesus experienced it too.  He never told us to not be angry.  Instead, he warned us only to not use anger as an excuse to sin.

So, you’re darn right I’m angry.  I’m angry that my rights are not considered as equal as others’, especially in a country designed to protect my religious liberties.  And I definitely believe it’s time that Christians finally begin overturning some tables (metaphorically speaking) in righteous (and legal) indignation.  Our adversaries stand in unison, armed to the teeth and ready to do battle.  All we need is to take the fight to them.  After all, we are at war, whether the rest of the nation recognizes it or not.

John Konya

John Konya graduated from college with a degree in Journalism and Mass Communication and then ran away from that line of work as fast as he could, recognizing a liberal bias in the media before there was actually a term for it. He joined the Air Force instead and flew fighter jets, which, as it turns out, is a considerably more satisfying endeavor. John grew up in a household of (legal) immigrants who escaped communism to find a home in the Party of Eisenhower. He is a veteran, airline pilot, former business owner and lifelong conservative. He is also now officially a middle-aged curmudgeon who draws the ire of both Democrats and Republicans alike. And that’s just the way he likes it.

  1. Back in 2014 the Benham brothers had developed a show for HGTV but it was canceled before it even aired because they were Christians. Needless to say, we don’t watch HGTV anymore. We can make a difference as evidenced by Target’s drop in sales after their restroom controversy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana