The Left Wants to Kill Christianity

Christianity is under attack in the United States.

The amount of evidence proving that this nation was founded as a Christian nation is astounding, but it has not deterred those who oppose this faith from unleashing their illogical and sinister attacks. The liberal Left has put the Christian faith in its crosshairs in order to decrease its influence on the life and culture of the nation. Why would anyone pursue such a course? The answer is easy: votes and political power. The Left knows that people who strongly embrace Christian values and seek to follow the Christian faith vote overwhelmingly for conservative candidates. The Left’s thinking is, “Fewer Christians, fewer votes for conservatives.” The statistics of the 2016 presidential election bear this out. Donald Trump received 81 percent of the evangelical vote while Hillary Clinton got 16 percent. This was a loss of five points from the 2012 election for Democrats. (1) According to the Pew Research Center, when church attendance was considered, the more a person attended church, the more likely he or she was to vote for Trump. (2)

The liberal Left, which controls the Democratic Party, seemingly cares about only one thing: power. Power is obtained by winning elections and controlling voting groups. When a voting group aligns with the opposition, then it is targeted by the Democrats. They seek to diminish and deplete the voting group’s numbers. The Left went into full battle mode to this end in the 1960s and has carried the fight ever since. It took control of public education and secondary education systems where liberal professors far outnumber conservative ones. It gained more and more control of the culture as it dominated the entertainment industry and the news media. It is a shame that their strategies are working. The growth of Evangelicals is not keeping up with the nation’s population growth. The liberal influence in public schools and on the college level has lured many Evangelicals from the faith. In 2003, 19 percent of people below thirty years of age professed “no religion.” This number increased to 35 percent in 2017 when only 22 percent identified with any brand of Protestantism. (3)

Evangelicals packed a strong political force back in the 1980s when Reagan won the White House twice by substantial margins. Many credit the Evangelical vote as the difference that reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when many Christian voters took to the polls in Ohio to also vote to uphold Biblical marriage instead of same-sex marriage. The liberals in the Democratic Party have taken note of these political realities and have deepened their commitment to diminish the influence of Christianity throughout the nation. One tactic in their assault is the separation of church and state concept. It is as foundational to them as the founding documents are to the Republic.

 Myth of the Separation of Church and State

The modern Left makes the case that the original intent of the founders was that we would be a purely secular nation where Christianity was to be expelled from the classroom, chased from the halls of government on all levels, and vanquished from the public square. The evidence in the preceding chapters clearly reveals that this was not the original intent of the founders. But the historical facts have not intimidated the Left one iota from launching their assault and proclaiming their bogus doctrine of separation from church and state. The Left has used slick marketing, the educational system, and a biased media to gain much ground for their cause. Their favorite weapon is the courts, where judges are appointed for life and never have to face the electorate. They believe they have found a loophole in our form of government to usurp the will of the people. Supreme Court decisions are almost impossible to change. What better way to advance your minority political views than to have activist liberal judges render decisions in line with their liberal positions rather than by precedence and the rule of law based on the Constitution. The use of the courts to substitute as a “super-legislature” is unconstitutional and has led to the dangerous doctrine of “judicial supremacy” by which Congress and the Executive Branch cower away from hard political decisions by allowing a liberal court to issue a ruling that is accepted as “THE LAW OF THE LAND!” But the courts can’t make a law. They can only interpret those laws that Congress makes and the president signs. One would think that everyone who passed ninth grade civics would know that, but it’s now accepted by most as the norm.

There are those who believe separation of church and state is in the Constitution. These words do not appear in the Constitution, nor is there a place where a case can easily be made for this concept. Where then does the Left obtain the basis for their doctrine of separation from church and state? They like to point to the “wall” between church and state, which they claim was set by the founders to prevent the church from having any influence in government or any place where government is in authority. This “wall” is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is found in a letter by President Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.

When Jefferson assumed office, he received a letter from the Danbury Baptists stating: “But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” (4) The Constitution in the First Amendment declares “free exercise” of religion. The Danbury Baptists were asking for clarification because they feared it might be interpreted that the State (federal government) could change this free exercise of religion if it decided that this liberty was a right based on governmental policy. It is understandable why they felt this way, because Connecticut did have a state-supported church clear into the 1830s. In essence, this Christian group was asking, “Can the government intrude in our religious activity in the future?” They also had the concern that, as a minority denomination, they could be at a disadvantage if another denomination was chosen by the government as the national church. Clearly they were asking, “What reach does the government have into religion?” and not, “What restrictions are on religion regarding its involvement in public life and government activity?” They wanted to know what actions government could enact in their affairs, not how they were prevented from voicing their concerns in the political arena.

This distinction is significant, because today’s liberals advocate for a strict separation of church and state and have used Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptists’ letter as the all-important document proving their belief, even though they actually flip-flop the concern of the letter.

The Baptists feared the intrusiveness of a strong government, whereas the secularists of the liberal Left want to turn the emphasis to exclusion of religious influence on government policy or activity.

Jefferson’s response to the Baptists contains a phrase that stated his understanding of why the Constitution declared that Congress could not make a law that would establish a national religion, or any law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion. That phrase was “thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”5 This one phrase, from a response to an inquiry letter—by itself hardly a heralded document on the scale of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution—is what the Left hangs its mythical doctrine of “separation of church and state” on. They point to the “wall” Jefferson referred to as what must ever stand to prevent religion from touching any part of government and public policy. They have it all wrong! The “wall” in Jefferson’s mind was not to prevent religion from touching government, but to prevent government from encroaching into a religion’s activity!

The liberal Left chose one phrase from Jefferson’s response and used it to launch a fabricated national policy. They discount the context in which the phrase appears. This is common practice for those of the Left; if something goes against their cause or even proves it wrong, they just ignore it.

Let’s look at a larger portion of Jefferson’s response, which provides the context and understanding that undermines the separation of church and state advocates:

Gentlemen, The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. . . .

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legislative powers of government reach action only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Jefferson used the words “natural rights.” The Founding Fathers used that phrase to refer to unalienable rights, meaning rights that came from God and not from the State. This shows that Jefferson understood the Baptists’ concern that government could one day pass a law that would infringe on their religious liberty. Jefferson was assuring them that this would not take place, because the Constitution prohibited the government from doing this. His wall protected religion from the State, not the other way around. It must be noted in his response that Jefferson paid tribute to “the common Father and Creator of man.” This is evidence that he believed in God, who created man and the world, not that life came about by chance. Somehow the Left fails to point this out as it fervently misuses his words.

Jefferson himself poses a problem for the liberal separation crowd. He designated space in the rotunda of the University of Virginia for chapel services. (7) He welcomed religious organizations to locate adjacent to, and on the property of, the University of Virginia so that students could be involved in religious activities. (8) He supported the use of the Charlottesville courthouse for church services. (9)

In real-life practice, it does not appear that the Left’s champion verifies their interpretation of his so-called separation clause. All these actions by Jefferson would be condemned by the liberal activists of today and outlawed by their willing black-robed accomplices. No president today could do what Jefferson did without the ACLU taking action and liberal politicians complaining on CNN. Jefferson’s actions reveal that he welcomed religion as a valuable participant in civic affairs and did not see it as conflicting with the operations of the government. His words give more evidence, as he once wrote that religion was “deemed in other countries incompatible with good government, and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.” (10)

He penned those words in a letter to Capt. John Thomas in 1807. Why haven’t we heard about this letter, only about the letter from which the “separation-wall clause” was gleaned and its true meaning twisted? Why haven’t Jefferson’s many words in favor of the active role of religion in American public life emerged in this debate? Along with many other statements on the issue, Jefferson’s letter to Capt. Thomas disproves the Left’s claim that Jefferson supported anything like the separation of church and state as its advocates attest.

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment has the “establishment clause,” which is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” What exactly was the intent of the framers when this clause became part of the amendment? This is the all-important question. Those who push the separation of church and state agenda claim it means all religious activity is to be void at government institutions, agencies, public events, and any other place where tax dollars are supportive. This position does not harmonize with history. We have already met Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who declared that America was a Christian nation in a unanimous court decision. In 1833 Story made a comment on the meaning of the First Amendment:

The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. (11) 

Story is saying that the government of America would not designate one denomination as the official state church to be blessed with favoritism and political power. The amendment did not aim to diminish Christianity’s influence, but only to make certain one denomination would not be favored over another. Many countries in Europe had official state churches, which resulted in persecutions and mistreatment of people who chose to align with a faith not part of the official state church. To avoid such treatment was the reason many migrated to America. The founders did not want to make the mistake of choosing a denomination to be the official church. For them, it was Christianity, yes, and official denomination, no.

Jefferson reaffirms Story’s explanation of the establishment clause in a letter to fellow Declaration of Independence signer Benjamin Rush:

The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one, perhaps, hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes; and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. (12)

Jefferson reveals that the purpose of the establishment clause was related to preventing one sect or denomination from being designated the official state church. Further evidence of this comes from George Mason, who was known as the Father of the Bill of Rights. He recommended the following wording for the First Amendment: “All men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” (13) History provides clear proof that the original intent of the founders in the establishment clause was to prevent any one denomination from gaining official state church status, not preventing Christianity from having a public voice and a moral influence on the culture of the nation.

 More Evidence Favoring Christianity

Some sixty-seven years after the drafting of the Constitution, in 1855, Congress presented a statement in a House Judiciary Committee report clearly showing that separation of church and state was neither a practiced policy nor something they even considered:

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. (14)

The words “in this age there can be no substitute for Christianity” were proclaimed by Congress in the mid-1800s, which is clear evidence that a separation of church and state was never the original intent of the founders nor a belief held by those who followed them into leadership and power. This statement by Congress totally destroys the claims by the Left that America’s founders wanted a purely secular nation devoid of any religious influence, especially from Christianity.

For the liberal Left, history poses only a minor obstacle for them. They just rewrite it, ignore it, and make sure that students are not taught the truth about it. The Left’s thinking is, “Why worry about the evidence of history when you have the courts to turn to?” It is a tragedy that the liberal Left has taken the First Amendment and turned it into a loophole to advance their socialistic and morally bankrupt agenda. They have been able to get a majority on the Supreme Court to see things their way. Practices and freedoms that were enjoyed by the American people for more than 180 years have been erased. There is a long list of judgments handed down by courts in which they accepted the misinterpretation of the liberal Left on this issue of separation of church and state. Here are only a few:

• It is unconstitutional for students to start their school day with a nondenominational prayer. Engel v. Vitale, 1962 (15)

• It is unconstitutional to require students to read the Bible in school. Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963 (16)

• If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud. Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965 (17)

• It is unconstitutional for a war memorial to be erected in the shape of a cross. Lowe v. City of Eugene, 1969 (18)

• It is unconstitutional for a public cemetery to have a planter in the shape of a cross, for if someone were to view that cross, it could cause “emotional distress” and thus constitute an “injury-in-fact.” Warsaw v. Tehachapi, 1990 (19)

• Even though the wording may be constitutionally acceptable, a bill becomes unconstitutional if the legislator who introduced the bill had a religious activity in his mind when it was authored. Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985 (20)

• It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books that deal with Christianity or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school. Roberts v. Madigan, 1990 (21)

• Artwork may not be displayed in schools if it depicts something religious, even if that artwork is considered a historical classic. Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools, 1994 (22)

• It is unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday is celebrated by Christmas. Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 1980 (23)

All of these items were acceptable at the adoption of the Constitution and many, many years afterwards. These court decisions are evidence that the Left has gained much ground in the culture war, and they did most of it without swaying public opinion or passing a single new law.

Not all judges on the high court have remained silent on this issue, even though they are on the minority side when it comes to public opinion. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist described the separation of church and state as a misleading metaphor:

But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights The ”wall of separation between church and

State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. (24) 

The words “mischievous diversion of judges” tell me that the late Chief Justice Rehnquist got it. He understood the true intent of the Founding Fathers, and it is ridiculous to wipe out 180 or more years of practices that were a vital part of our culture and rooted in our heritage. The Left has found the Achilles’ heel of our republican representative form of government to be the judiciary. They have exploited it effectively to their advantage.

Jefferson again provides a problem for the separation-secularist crowd, even as they selectively take words from his response to the Danbury Baptists out of context in order to legitimize their position. Jefferson was not a fan of sweeping judicial power, a fact that is quite ironic since the courts have granted modern-day Leftists nearly all their victories. Not surprisingly, anti-religious activists fail to quote Jefferson when he speaks out about the judiciary system. Jefferson knew the dangers that the judiciary branch held when it was not accountable to an electorate, a point he strongly made in a letter to William Jarvis:

You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps And their

power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. (25)

Jefferson’s wisdom was not available to the framers of the Constitution when it was debated since he was serving as a diplomat in France at the time. It appears that his thinking was indeed missed. Jefferson points out the key reason the Left loves to use the courts. The judges are appointed for life and face no repudiation at the ballot box. The Left does not take their case to the legislature and go through the process for drafting a bill and having it passed then signed into law. This process is not advantageous to them, because their beliefs do not match the majority of the people. It is much easier for them to get a case before a court, often the Supreme Court, where the ruling becomes the law of the land. They make law via the court system rather than through Congress, which is an effective way to go when you seek to create laws against the will of the people.

Judges can make a decision that ignores history and precedence to advance their liberal agenda and have no fear of losing job security. Judges are appointed by presidents. Now you know why the Left was so infuriated when Donald Trump won the White House and the Republicans maintained control of the Senate. There was nothing the Left-leaning Democrats could do to stop the appointment of a conservative justice. They fear more such appointments could come.

The doctrine of separation of church and state, as the Left prescribes it, is absurd. To ascribe to their position you have to believe that the men who framed the Constitution immediately violated it by allowing the Bible and prayer in schools, Christian Christmas decorations on public property, and crosses to adorn the graves in government-owned cemeteries. You’d have to believe they weren’t smart enough to know they were violating the Constitution they had created. That wisdom only emerged when liberal, activist judges became a majority on the court.

Agenda Advancement by Court

When Barack Obama ran for president, he said he wanted to transform the United States as a country. Basically, the Supreme Court has done that with its illogical rulings that run contrary to our nation’s history and to the majority of the American people. The liberal Leftists that make up the modern Democratic Party are firm believers in “the ends justify the means,” and they rejoice in their victories gained in sinister ways. The greatest jewel in their crown of victories via the Supreme Court is Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in every state. The people’s representatives in Congress never got to debate the issue or vote on a bill. The Supreme Court became the lawmaker on this issue. Since most Christians stand on the side of life, the victory was all the sweeter for the liberal Left. A prime example of “judicial supremacy.”

The Left does not stop at expelling all things Christian from the classroom, but also expends a great deal of effort inserting their agenda throughout the curriculum used by schools with the aid of the National Educational Association (NEA). Liberals willfully choose Darwin over Jesus. Evolution for a liberal is real proven science and should be taught in schools as the sole explanation for how life and the world began. A few years ago the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, wanted to add a course on Intelligent Design so that students could explore both sides of the debate of how life came to be. The Left sued and won on the basis that Intelligent Design was just a cover for creationism, which was tied to religion. (26)

Favoring Islam

Creationism is a religious teaching and therefore unconstitutional via court ruling. If enough Christian kids are pulled over to a belief in evolution, then there is a chance to win them over to the liberal political agenda when they are old enough to vote. Scripture does not endorse the gay lifestyle, but that does not prevent it from having a positive presence in the public school system paid for by the taxpayer. On July 15, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a bill into law that required schools to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. (27) No word yet if the contributions of Christians will be taught.

Christianity may be snubbed, but not Islam. California once again led the way in a controversial education endeavor. A school had a textbook entitled Across the Centuries, which also came with Islam simulation materials. These materials were needed because the state legislature required three weeks of Islamic studies for seventh graders. I don’t think Christianity or Judaism got their three weeks, but there was no opposition from the ACLU or other separation of church and state fanatics. The textbook presented the positive teachings of Islam and contrasted them with Christianity. I am sure that the horrors of the Moors’ invasion, the Battle of Tours, and the execution of the Jews in Qurayza were left out to save ink. (28)

Students not only had to endure the textbook, but they also had to emulate being a Muslim. They had to take an Islamic name, pray in the name of Allah, simulate their own jihad (your guess is as good as mine on how they did this one), dress in Muslim clothes, memorize Islamic prayers, and fast at lunch during Ramadan. (29) This problem is not just in California. Tennessee also has pro-Muslim schools, as students in Williamson County have textbooks and materials that are pro-Islam and anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. Parents have voiced concern and are making a challenge. (30)

In Temecula, California, a charter school banned all Christian materials from its library.

A parent was appalled when she noticed the books that the librarians were removing from the shelves. One book was The Hiding Place, the story of Holocaust survivor Corrie ten Boom, who was a Christian in Holland and whose family helped to hide Jews during World War II until they themselves were captured. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association produced a movie on ten Boom’s story. When the parent voiced a protest, the staff told her that they had been given orders to remove all Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books by Christian publishers. (31)

The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a religious freedom litigation organization, took the case to represent the concerned parent. PJI informed the school superintendent that the school was in violation of the First Amendment by banning the books. Michael Peffer, the PJI attorney, sent the school a cease-and-desist letter “citing long-established Supreme Court precedent that strongly disapproves of school libraries removing books based on opposition to their content or message.” (32)

Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer ignored the appeal to the First Amendment and stated, “We . . . do not allow sectarian materials on our state-authorized lending shelves.” (33) This made for some difficult situations, which were made apparent by the president of PJI, Brad Dacus, who stated:

It is alarming that a school library would attempt to purge books from religious authors. Indeed, some of the greatest literature of Western Civilization comes from people of faith. Are they going to ban the sermons or speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about the Declaration of Independence that invokes the laws of nature and nature’s God? (34)

Another incident happened in West Virginia when a parent showed up at a local school board meeting. The encounter can be seen in the documentary entitled IndoctriNation, which shows a father vehemently confronting the school board for assigning his daughter a book that could be described as literary pornography. He read a portion of the book, and the filmmaker had to bleep out many words because they were obscene. The Bible was not welcome at the school, but evidently literary porn was, and was even required reading. (35)

Indoctrination, not Education

Back to California to review an absolutely mind-boggling situation at a school in the San Francisco Bay Area that focused on one of the nation’s founding documents. Fifth-grade teacher Steven Williams was prevented from passing out copies of the Declaration of Independence because it made a reference to God.36 He also was prevented from using George Washington’s Journal, John Adams’ Diary, The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams, and William Penn’s The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, all for the same reason, that there are references to God in these literary works. (37)

The governor of Louisiana wanted to use money from the 1996 Welfare Act to fund abstinence sex education programs for the purpose of lowering the teen pregnancy rate. The ACLU took action, claiming that abstinence programs were Christian-based and that to spend federal dollars on them would be illegal. The result was that a new source of funding had to be found.38 The fact is that there are nonbelievers and some non-churchgoers who would welcome abstinence education in the school because they do not want their children sexually active while in school, for reasons that are not always related to a religious belief. Once again, the Left puts Christianity in the crosshairs of the public school system.

New York University psychology professor Paul Vitz did a study on sixty widely used school textbooks. He found that not one communicated the spirituality of the Pilgrims. He concluded in his study that textbooks were biased and practiced censorship to the benefit of a secular position and disregard for the truth. (39)

Public school is not the only educational environment that the Left patrols for advancing their agenda and taking Christianity down a peg or two. Tammy Bruce relates the case of a young man that endured extreme prejudice from a college professor. The student at Lakeland Community College near Cleveland was in a class where he was required to wear a pink triangle to symbolize homosexual pride. The student refused to do so, citing that it was contrary to his moral beliefs. He asked for an alternative assignment but the request was rejected. He was an honor student and was given an F grade for failing to participate. Never was there a time when the class had students wear a gold straight arrow for straight pride week. The student was in danger of being expelled until his story was covered by local television news. It created such a negative publicity problem for the college that the school caved and changed the student’s grade (40). What is so appalling about this incident is that this community college is supported by tax dollars.

The Bible stands for sexual purity and marriage between a man and a woman. This is not part of the Left’s agenda. In their thinking, the Christian faith deserves to be targeted in whatever way possible, because it will not change its doctrine when it comes to homosexuality.

Liberal Bias in Hollywood

The Left has another area where it has aimed its crosshair scope: the entertainment industry of film and television. They have declared open season on Christianity. Any derogatory action that can chastise and beleaguer the faith symbolized by the cross is considered acceptable. Tom Clancy wrote a novel entitled The Sum of All Fears, which was turned into a movie. The film producers made a significant change in the story. In the book the bad guys were Muslim extremists, but the Arab-American lobbyists prevailed on Paramount to make the villains in the film neo-Nazi European industrialists. (41)

Paramount did not want to offend the Muslim community by having Islamic culprits in the film even though Islamic terrorists were alive and well in the world. It makes all the more sense for them to do so since the Muslim voting bloc strongly favors the liberal Democrats. On the other hand, Hollywood did not have any problem with offending Christians when it produced the film The Last Temptation of Christ, which portrayed Jesus Christ as confused, weak, and bewildered. There were no worries about offending Jews in the film King David, which had David giving up his faith at the end of the movie, something not recorded in the Bible. These films were protested by Christians, but their protests had no effect on Hollywood. The films did not have much effect on the movie-going public either as they did poorly at the box office.

Hollywood was rocked by the success of the positive Christian film The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, which chronicled the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The film was applauded by the Christian community, but it had to travel a difficult road to make it to the big screen. Mainstream Hollywood was not interested in the film. Why would they be? Jesus was not shown as corrupt or weak or denying His faith. No major studio would take on Gibson’s film. Distributors did not line up to support it. Gibson finally decided to fund and direct the film himself. He eventually found a distributor, and the film made it to the theaters for a very successful run; it became one of the highest grossing films of all time. (42)

Some criticized the film as being anti-Semitic. They even went so far as to say that any film favorable to Christianity would be anti-Semitic by default. Hollywood did not worry about offending Jews with King David. These criticisms were a red herring, because the real reason Hollywood did not like the film was that it was pro-Christian. It bears mentioning that The Passion of the Christ lost out in the Academy Awards for Best Picture to Million Dollar Baby, a film that advocated assisted suicide. (43)

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias said, “Television has been the single greatest shaper of emptiness.”44 The Left has used television to transfer this emptiness into the minds of Americans, especially the youth. Shows like West Wing, Commander in Chief, Madam Secretary, and Homeland have a liberal bias that is easy to recognize, but the small screen also takes shots at the values of the Christian faith and Christianity itself. Viacom’s TV Land had a show, Impastor, set to air in July of 2018. The following quote describes this video debacle:

TV Land calls their new program “Impastor” an irreverent new comedy. Christians are calling it disgusting! “Impastor” is a show set to air July 15 at 10:30 p.m. ET/9:30 p.m. CT that includes a man stealing someone’s identity who happens to be a pastor. The main character, posing as a gay preacher, recently hired sight unseen by a church that was aware of his lifestyle choice, but then started to notice other characteristics not typical of a pastor. The previews which air earlier in the evening are including the pastor having extensive knowledge of the quality of drugs and insinuating sexual relations with fruit such as cantaloupe. The church secretary catches the pastor sleeping around with women and other behaviors not typical of a Christian, much less a pastor. (45)

You can be sure that no one connected with this show is losing any sleep over the fact that what they are doing is offending Christians. The show Friends was a popular NBC sitcom that endorsed casual sex, homosexuality, and out-of-wedlock pregnancy—just the things you want your teenager to accept as normal behavior. NOT!

Will & Grace was a popular show in the earlier part of this century. It featured an attractive young lady with a homosexual male roommate. It advocated the gay lifestyle and always put in a positive light, undoubtedly to help convince heterosexuals to be more accepting of homosexuals and more sympathetic to their agenda and quest for legalized marriage. The Classic TV and Movie Hits website documents the success and impact of this show:

By 2005, Will & Grace had been nominated for 49 and won 12 Emmys. From 2001–2005, Will & Grace was the second highest rated comedy among adults 18–49, second only to NBC’s own Friends, which usually preceded it on the Thursday night schedule. It has also been heralded as responsible for opening the door to a string of gay themed television programs such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Boy Meets Boy. Will & Grace has won several GLAAD Media Awards for its fair and accurate representation of the gay community. (46)

It is little wonder that many millennials when surveyed now say they support same-sex marriage. Tyler Kingkade with the Huffington Post writes that 70 percent of adults born after 1981 approve of same-sex marriage, up 64 percent since 2012.47 The strategy to use the entertainment industry to attack a Christian value and gain substantial ground has been very successful for the Left. Shows like Sex in the City have presented a lifestyle contrary to the Christian absolute of sexual purity before and after marriage. They undoubtedly have influenced women to experiment with more promiscuous sexual behavior.

The FCC has been a restraint on over-the-air networks’ content to keep it from going too far in language and sexual scenes. Cable is a different ballgame. The FCC has no jurisdiction and Pandora’s box has been opened. Soft porn films and shows are fair game, with vulgar language the norm. Christian values are clobbered by cable shows. Even though there are Christian cable channels, they have fewer viewers than the cable channels that feature R-rated programming.

It is not just the shows that attack the values of Christianity, but also the commercials. Planned Parenthood once ran a TV commercial on MTV that took some heat for being too racy since it promoted the use of condoms for safe sex. The ad shows a young woman working with power tools and saying that her dad told her to always use the “right tool” for the job. Later, she is bursting into a bedroom where some guy waits under the covers. She quickly rips off her work clothes to reveal a skimpy outfit and dives under the covers. Words communicate that the condom is the right tool to use when having sex. (48)

Another Planned Parenthood ad run on several Missouri TV stations zeroed in on birth control. A young girl and her boyfriend go to a Planned Parenthood center. Their marital status is not revealed, but everything indicates that they are not married. The couple is there to acquire birth control pills, and other young faces appear in the ad to voice their support. (49) These youth appear to be in high school. Planned Parenthood loves to have teens on birth control because they commonly forget to take their pill regularly and pregnancies happens. Planned Parenthood is more than happy to help with the abortions, for a price of course.

Could the Left now be turning their anti-Christian sentiments to social media? The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) group has reported that some social media platforms are discriminating against Christian organizations. It states:

New media platforms Facebook, Apple, Comcast, AT&T and Google have adopted policies to censor lawful viewpoints expressing Christian views or controversial ideas on “hot button issues.” Some platforms, such as Apple’s iTunes App Store and Google’s search engine, have already started to use those policies to remove orthodox Christian viewpoints considered “offensive” or too controversial.50

Most likely if a Christian group presented any information stating their position on same-sex marriage or support for the pro-life movement it could receive scrutiny. 

Just when you think the Left has gone too far, something else comes along that is both unbelievable and revealing. It is unbelievable because it is so extreme, and revealing because it shows the real sinister intent they have in opposing Christianity. On October 14, 2014, Todd Starnes of Fox News reported that Houston’s lesbian mayor, Annise Parker, issued subpoenas demanding that a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity, or information about her. If ministers failed to do so, they could be held in contempt of court. (51)

Immediately the First Amendment comes to mind on two accounts. Do not the ministers have free speech? And, isn’t it an encroachment on the religious exercise right that is also protected by the First Amendment? The mayor later withdrew her demand, but her actions do show how far the Left will go. What they cannot achieve now they may seek at a later time, if they feel public opinion is trending their way.

The homeschool movement is made up largely of Christians. The liberal Left is not a fan of this means of education. Of course they wouldn’t be, because it keeps too many kids from being indoctrinated to the liberal agenda at taxpayers’ expense. The Georgia Education Association, that state’s version of the NEA, has sought to virtually end homeschooling in the state by trying to get a large number of requirements and restrictions placed on homeschools.52 They have yet to fully succeed, but do not expect them to stop trying.

It is very sobering to get a glimpse of how far the Left will go in its attack on Christianity. Hillary Clinton gave us that picture in a speech at the 2015 Women in the World Summit when she said, “Deepseated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” (53) She thinks religious beliefs have to change? This is not the responsibility of any government official, even a president. This is not the thinking of a candidate in a representative democracy; it is that of a tyrant. Tyranny is what we escaped from in the Revolutionary War. German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, who was a young man in Europe at the time when the Constitution was being framed, penned two statements liberal Democrats would fully embrace:

The State is the march of God through the World, its ground is the power of reason realizing itself as will. We must...worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on Earth. (54)

Hegel saw the State or government as the replacement of God on earth. Any political leader ascribing to this concept would regard Christianity as foe, not friend.

As long as Evangelical Christians vote strongly for conservatives and Republicans, the liberal, leftist Democrats will continue to ridicule, harass, discriminate against, and directly attack Christians. This chapter has only scratched the surface of this issue. For a more detailed study, please refer to David Limbaugh’s book Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. As the Left keeps their opposition alive against Christians, what can Christians do?

• Become more informed on the issues and seek out the real truth. A little tip: you won’t find it on CNN or other so-called mainstream media outlets.

• Help pro-Christian candidates in their campaigns.

• Remember that who you vote for president matters for the long-term because presidents appoint judges. Leftist presidents and senators will put liberal activist judges on the court.

There is real power in having a conservative majority in the House and Senate. You may have to hold your nose sometimes and vote for a less than stellar candidate, but it is a better alternative than letting leftists have a majority, because then the attacks on the Christian faith will ramp up. 

Notes

1.  Gregory A. Smith and Jessica Martínez, “How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis,” Fact Tank, Pew Research Center, November 9, 2016. http:// nary-2016-analysis/

2.  Ibid.

3.  Ed Kilgore, “Americans With No Religion Greatly Outnumber White Evangelicals,” New York Magazine, May 11,2018. er/2018/05/the-irreligious-now-outnumber-white-evangelicals-in-america.html

4.  Letter from the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, October 7, 1801, housed in the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

5.  Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 16 (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1903), 281–282.

6.  Ibid.

7.  Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 19 (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1903), 449–450.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Thomas Jefferson, Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 4 (London: Colburn and Bentley, 1829), 367.

10. Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 16, 291.

11. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 3, paragraph 1871, as quoted by The Founders’ Constitution, “Amendment I (Religion),” document 69, accessed February 10, 2016, uments/amendI_religions69.html.

12.  Thomas Jefferson, Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 3 (London: Coburn and Bentley, 1829), 441.

13.  Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 244.

14.  House Judiciary Committee report, March 27, 1854, as quoted by Bill Bailey, “Religion and Government, Are We a Christian Nation?,” The Federalist Papers Project, accessed February 10, 2016, http://www.thefederalist papers. org/history/religion-and-government-are-we-a-christian-nation.

15. Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962).

16.   Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963).

17.  Reed v. Van Hoven, 237 F. Supp. 48 (Dist. Court, WD Michigan, 1965).

18.  Lowe v. City of Eugene, 451 P.2d 117 (1969).

19.  Warsaw v. Tehachapi CV F-90-404 EDP (USDC, ED Ca. 1990).

20. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US at 103 (1985).

21. Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F. 2d 1047 (10th Circuit, 1990).

22.  Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools, 33 F. 3d 679 (6th Circuit, 1994).

23.  Florey v. Sioux Falls School District. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (Dist. Court, D South Dakota, 1980). 

24.  Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US at 103 (1985), Rehnquist (dissenting).

25.  Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15 (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1903), 277.

26.  John Corson, “The Cultural War: The Far Left’s Agenda,” Corson, 2014. http://corson.org/archives/culture/C1_april.htm

27.  The CNN Wire Staff, “ California governor signs bill requiring schools to teach gay history,” July15, 2011. nia.lgbt.education/index.html

28.  David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery, 200), 76.

29.  Ibid.

30.  Emma Green, “The Fear of Islam in Tennessee Public Schools,” Dec 16, 2015, The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/20lam-tennessee-public-schools/420441/

31. Carey Lodge, “California school bans all Christian Books,” September 29, 2014. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/california-school-bans-all-christian-books/41072.htm

32.  Ibid.

33.  Ibid.

34.  Ibid

35.  Colin Gunn, IndoctriNation film, www.indoctrinationmovie.com.

36.  “Banned From Showing Students the Declaration of Independence,” FoxNews.com, partial transcript for Hannity & Colmes, November 29, 2004, accessed January 23, 2016, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/11/30/banned from-showing-students-declaration-independence.html.

37.  Ibid.

38.  Douglas Kennedy, “ACLU Sues Louisiana Over Abstinence Ed,” FoxNews. com, May 16, 2002, accessed February 10, 2016, http://www.fox news.com/story/2002/05/16/aclu-sues-louisiana-over-abstinence-ed.html.

39.  Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children’s Textbook (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1986), 14.

40.  Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong, Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville, CA: Prima Forum, 2003), 162–163.

41. David Limbaugh, Persecution, 285-286.

42.  Steve Feazel and Dr. Carol M. Swain, Abduction: How Liberalism Steals Our Children’s Hearts and Minds, (Christian Faith Publishers, Meadville, PA) 2016. p. 154. 155.

43.  Ibid.

44.   Prince Frederick, “Mind Matters,” The Hindu, June 11, 2011, accessed February 10, 2016, www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metro plus/ mind-matters/article2094593.ece.

45.  “TV Land Continues to Mock Christianity with New Show ‘Impastor’” 4/9/2018, One Million Moms. https://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns/tv-land-continues-to-mock-christianity-with-new-show-impastor/

46.  ClassicTVHits.com, “Will and Grace,” accessed January 23, 2016, http:// www.classictvhits.com/show.php?id=681

47.  Tyler Kingkade, “Millennial Support For Gay Marriage Hits All-

Time High: Pew Research Center,” Huffington Post, 3/21/2013. https:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/millennial-support-gay-mar-riage_n_2924993.html

48.  Allison Kasic, “Planned Parenthood’s Racy New TV ad,” Human Events, April 26, 2006, accessed February 10, 2016, http://humanevents. com/2006/04/26/planned-parenthoods-racy-new-tv-ad/.

49.  “Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri TV Commercial,” Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, YouTube video uploaded March 15, 2013, accessed February 10, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0A12YpJK61.

50.  Stephanie Samuel, “Facebook, Google, Apple Censoring Religious Speech?” The Christian Post, September 16, 2011. https://www.christianpost.com/news/ facebook-google-apple-censoring-religious-speech-55736/

51. Todd Starnes, “City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons,” Fox News, October 14, 2014. houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html

52.   “Homeschool Opposition: Who Are They? and What Do They Want?” http://www.heir.org/oldsite/oppwho.htm

53.  Marc A. Thiessen, “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty.” The Washington Post, October 13, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-915011e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.c30e69a0702c

54.  G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1929), pp. 443-444, 44