The American Spectator : Religiously Dissing America's Independence Day

Text Size

Among the Intellectualoids

Religiously Dissing America's Independence Day

By Mark Tooley on 7.6.10 @ 6:07AM

The growing animus of the Religious and Evangelical Left toward American's founding.

Predictably, Jim Wallis's Religious Left Sojourners blog dishonored Independence Day by featuring an op-ed headlined "Why Christianity and July 4th are Incompatible."

In it, a young pacifist pastor explained why Christians can't "celebrate" having "killed thousands upon thousands of people because they [the British] were taxing us without giving us representation in parliament."

Of course, the reasons for the American Revolution were far more complex than a tax dispute. As the Declaration of Independence summarized the former colonists' grievances against their once monarch:

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the American colonists had already over a decade peacefully resisted various royalist schemes to tax and exploit them. The Declaration of Independence came after more than a year into the military conflict, and the Continental Congress had initially convened with hopes of reconciliation with Britain. The actual war did not begin until British troops unsuccessfully attempted to seize both the arsenal, and local leaders, of Massachusetts, in what resulted in the Battles of Concord and Lexington. Led by the royal governor, British troops attempted a similar plot in Virginia. After failing, Virginia's royal governor retreated to a British royal ship and shelled various Virginia coastal towns, which hardly excited local support for the royal cause. St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Norfolk still displays a British cannonball in its walls.

Animosity towards America's founding by the Religious and Evangelical Left is perhaps best embodied by popular Anabaptist theologian Stanley Hauerwas. Guru to much of the Evangelical Left, he has pronounced July 4 one of history's worst dates because of the ostensible arrogance of founding a nation upon a premise rather than a culture. The author of the Sojourners' piece was young Mennonite Brethren minister Kurt Willems, who contemptuously asked in true Hauerwas style: "Is it honorable to kill because people don't like being taxed?"

Mennonites, like most in the Anabaptist tradition, are historically pacifist. But their pacifism historically was primarily binding on themselves and not wielded as a sanctimonious and accusatory sword against the vast majority of Christians, and even against the state itself, for not equally bending to pacifism. Hauerwas's anti-Americanism and infallible pacifism appeal to many on the Evangelical Left, who find it seductively subversive, despite its separatism from universal Christianity. It also generates a grossly distorted historical narrative, in which the United States is the paramount global villain, whose notions of "freedom" should be idolatrous to Christians.

"I challenge the idea that my freedom to choose came from our independence," Willems insisted. "I am free to choose because God has given me a free will. Just like the Christians who suffered persecution during the first century and so on, I have the ability to choose because of the grace of God." Well, it's true that Christians always have the freedom of martyrdom. But absolute pacifism insists that even in the face of a genocidal holocaust, the faithful may only give non-violent witness. In contrast, nearly all of Christianity has always insisted on the state's divine vocation to wield the sword against evil. And most of Christianity has asserted Christians' own personal responsibility to defend the defenseless with more than their own martyrdom.

Superficially, Willems concluded: "Even if we had not separated ourselves from England, most likely it would have turned out pretty good." After all, "Canada never revolted, and they are doing just fine." He cited a decade old column by evangelical scholar Mark Noll, himself sometimes aligned with the Evangelical Left, who claimed the American Revolution failed to meet Christian Just War principles. According to Noll, Americans "fought a war to gain the kind of freedom that Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were simply given after not too many decades," and establishing an "evil precedent" of America's ignoring "classical Christian justifications for warfare."

Commonly many on the Evangelical Left, claiming not to be pacifist, interpret Christian Just War criteria so tightly as to make all armed force morally impossible. But there is also the sometimes common assumption, almost unique to liberals in Anglo-American culture, that all will be well, regardless. Without exertion, America would have gently eased into independence and democracy like Canada. Likewise, the slaves would have been freed even without the Civil War, German expansionism, even Nazism, would have eventually deflated on its own, and the Soviet Union peacefully collapsed even without American resolve.

Human history is far more complex than progressive determinists assume. People of faith trust that Providence ultimately prevails. But traditionalists also know that Providence often permits evil to persist for long seasons, depending on human choices. Would Britain's dominions have peacefully achieved their own democracy absent America's example? Would Britain itself have expanded its own once highly limited franchise absent the American Revolution? Didn't Britain's own constitutional freedoms depend partly on the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the parliamentary led civil war of the 1640s against the Stuart monarchy? Absent the American Revolution and subsequent British parliamentary reforms, would Britain have been spared the revolutionary violence that shook continental Europe for much of the early 19th century?

Only Providence truly knows. But America's Founders understood that lawful freedom is an exception to human history, not the norm, and prevails only through great exertion and vigilance. British premier Lord Lansdowne, who negotiated Britain's peace with the new United States, admiringly received and displayed Gilbert's Stuart's famous portrait of George Washington commissioned specifically for him. Lansdowne, like many British who cherished lawful freedom, understood the American Revolution was about significantly more than petty complaints about taxes.

Will Sojourners feature an anti-Bastille Day column later this month to excoriate the blood-soaked French Revolution, which facilitated much of modernity's worst barbarities? In October, will Sojourners rail against the Bolshevik Revolution, whose totalitarian victory ultimately murdered tens of millions? Almost certainly not.

The historically unparalleled American Revolution, initiated reluctantly, and led by temperate and mostly Christian statesmen, created a republic that cherishes private property, personal liberty, free speech, and religious freedom. They believed in limited government because they knew that no state could replicate the Kingdom of God, as utopians so often disastrously insist. For this reason, among others, the Left, including the Religious and Evangelical Left, often uniquely despises the American Revolution and the incomparable republic it founded.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (94) | Leave a comment

michigander_sandusky| 7.6.10 @ 7:59AM

These folks of which Mr. Tooley writes are either stupid or ignorant as they fail to recognize that the American Revolution was an act of God's providence.

believer| 7.6.10 @ 8:10AM

Mark- I agree with Jim Wallis's assesment of why
Christians should not celibrate the 4th of July but for a differate reason. America is not even remotely the same Country as it was in it's early history, our public school's have by teaching evolution, destroyed more young lives than any war ever could. The Govornment has taken away every right except the right to travel that we were blessed with , by that I mean your right's of private property, and if you think you still have that try stop paying your property tax's. Your right to bare arms, your right to raise your children as you choose, I.E. they can take your kids from you for any reason they choose, We were warned by George Washington not to get envolved in foreign intanglements but 200 years later we have troops in 126 or so Nations. Our Supreme Court has forbid any mention of the religion that was the backbone of the Revolution in our schools, If you pick any part of the reasons for the Revolution you would find that they are either gone or watered down, with the exception of the freedom of speech, that one has allowed the film and entertainment ind. the right to plunge the
Nation headlong into immorality. So when I look at America 200 years later I think I'll pass on any celibration.

Ryan| 7.6.10 @ 10:40AM

Yep, your first amendment rights are so abrogated that the cops are coming to arrest you for what you just wrote.

You overstate. We are in a massively free country, and the occurrences which you point out tend to occur very rarely.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.10 @ 10:48AM

believer is a libertopian.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.10 @ 11:13AM

... an unusual one, though;
judging by his spelling, he appears to be a victim of public schooling down South. Government is slightly smaller there, but schools are no better.

Tim*| 7.6.10 @ 10:52PM

Aaaand Brooks appears to crave negative attention .

Citizen Jerry| 7.6.10 @ 12:14PM

Sounds like a true believer Ron Paul libertarian to me. Washington was correct about foreign entanglements in his time. But today, as Senor Ferrari told Rick in Casablanca, isolationism is no longer a wise foreign policy.

Believer| 7.6.10 @ 6:15PM

Alan Brooks and Citizen Jerry are im sure smarter
than me and can spell better but to take me for a
Libertarian is their misstake. If you cant see what is happening to our Country and misstake material wealth for freedom then your as blind as the Democratic and Republican voters who show that their too stupid to vote. Isolationism would keep us out of wars that are impossible to win and keep the American workforce working instead of sending our jobs overseas. So go ahead and show us how smart you are and vote in the same policys that have brought us to Bankruptsy, of which both partys are responsible. As for Ron Paul im sure if elected to any office nothing would change as im sure he believes that we should'nt go back to the way America was when it was trully a great Nation, we are past the point of no return as Bankruptsy and being a third world nation is emminent.

Purpleguy| 7.6.10 @ 2:16PM

So you would celebrate a very young nation that didn't give women the right to vote? Or blacks free from slavery with equal rights? Or voting was based on property owned - no property, no vote? You would celebrate that?

You have a stilted view of what the Founders gave this country - and the Constitution of their time is NOT the Constitution of our time. Just like the Bible is interpreted from time to time differently, so is the Constitution. But the underlying principles of the Constitution are enduring - but I'll guess you don't really know what they are, do you?

Al Adab| 7.6.10 @ 4:45PM

Sorry Purp, you're wrong again. 4th of July celebrates the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, admirable as that document also is. I would celebrate Independence over tyranny from afar any day even with the flaws you cite.

Although I might argue property ownership as a condition of the franchise. Perhaps in fact those receiving government checks should do without the vote. After all they might just choose to continue to vote themselves ever more of other people's money. N'cest pas?

Patrick in AZ| 7.6.10 @ 4:56PM

Actually I believe it was the individual States who determined who was eligible to vote and who was not. In some states women & blacks were allowed to vote (usually if they were property owners) - I think New Jersey put in their state constitution that women had the right to vote. Much of that was changed by subsequent governments, not the Founders.

Many of the Founding Fathers were in favor of eliminating slavery and took steps towards eliminating slavery at the founding of the country, but had to make compromises on that in order to keep the southern colonies in the union. Again, it was subsequent governments that changed the path we were on to eliminate slavery.

The idea of only "property owners" being allowed to vote may seem strange to us today, but the idea was that people with "skin in the game" (those who have something to lose) should be allowed to determine who would be in charge. And property ownership was highly encouraged and in some cases property was practically given away. It may seem odd now, but there was some historical logic behind the idea. Today we have a near-majority who does not pay income taxes, yet they have a large voice in determining how much the rest of us have to pay (and far too much of that goes to them).

There is a big difference between the "Founding Fathers" and the individual state governments and future federal governments.

caitlin| 7.6.10 @ 8:40AM

What's wrong with celebrating our country's birthday, regardless of how we got here?
"believer", my goodness, it's not that bad. I'd like to know, seriously, how can the govt. "take your kids from you for any reason they choose." Members of my family have had no problems raising their children as they choose and I don't believe my right to bear arms has been ended, nor will it.
Lighten up.

Patrick in AZ| 7.6.10 @ 5:05PM

"Take your kids from you for any reason they choose." is obviously a HUGE stretch - but lets be honest on the other side of this as well - you are only allowed to raise your children as "you choose" as long as it does not run contrary to what "government" (at any level) says you can do and as long as they are unaware that you are doing something "wrong".

Bilwick| 7.6.10 @ 8:47AM

Would that the Left--Religious and Secular--were so pacifistic when it came to using the coercive powers of the State.

Walking Horse| 7.6.10 @ 12:13PM

Brevity is the soul of wit. Well done.

chris haynes| 7.6.10 @ 9:15AM

Abortion
All men created equal?
Endowed by their creator with an inalienable right to life?

Try to square those ideas with legal abortion.
You cant. Abortion requires that you deem a group of men to be inferior, much like cattle or chickens. Otherwise how can you justify killing them for convernience.

Those who support legal abortion would sound like goofs if they talked up the Declaration of Independence. Remember Rudy Gulianni making a fool of himself on Laura Ingraham
.

mejamom| 7.6.10 @ 9:38AM

Good article. I wouldn't have known about this otherwise.
I have to agree with "caitlin" above. Our country is our home and should be respected as such. Celebrate it's birthday!
And, "believer", wow. Um, yes, our country isn't the same one as it was in it's early history, and I wouldn't want it to be. Change happens, and no one will ever be happy, 100%, as to how we change.
I also am wondering why you think your children can be taken from you for any reason. Because of my career, I have plenty of stories that dispute that, but I won't go into details. Why can't you raise your children the way you want? And last I heard, the right to bear arms is still on the books.
You sound like the kind of conservative who says the current administration hates America, but what did you just say?

Patrick| 7.6.10 @ 9:55AM

Show me a liberal pacifist, and I will show you a closet totalitarian.

Purpleguy| 7.6.10 @ 2:11PM

Huh?

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 9:58AM

For the same exact reasons pointed out by Mr. Tooley in this article that the Religious Left are considered part of the Left, so is non-interventionist Libertarianism and Paleo-Conservatism. Also Leftist, they are just as rabid, insane, and holier-than-thou in their own minds as well.

Blaming America for the reason terrorists are terrorists, they behave in like manner with their comrades on the Religious Left.

Just like the Religious Left believes they are the "true" Christians, so do the non-interventionists consider themselves the only "true conservatives."

Ryan| 7.6.10 @ 10:35AM

You're one of the few conservatives that I ever see who considers the paleocons and libertarians as part of the "left."

Non-interventionism has always been sort of a separate issue, particularly since so many Republicans AND Democrats held it in the early 1900s. It's not really a right-or-left stance, because the political philosophies of both sides can draw a non-interventionist conclusion.

Disclaimer - I'm no non-interventionist. I just think that you unjustly demonize them as part of the left, when its just not the case.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 10:52AM

To speak truthfully isn't demonization. You are using a typical Leftist tactic.

Who EVER says that America is an "Aggressor," that we are to blame for terrorism, and that we are terrorists if we bomb another country we are at war with, is indeed a comrades with the Left.

The Left believes in The Utopian Dream. Conservatives believe in The American Dream.

Ryan| 7.6.10 @ 2:17PM

Idealists on both sides have their own version of Utopia. By definition, it's simply an ideal world.

I didn't say you weren't speaking truthfully. You believe it's true. It simply isn't. I stated that you were demonizing people for being part of the left when they aren't.

In other words, non-interventionism is NOT a purely left-of-center position. You treat that one singular issue and paint good fiscal (and sometimes social) conservatives with the same motivations and contempt you have for the left.

Study the recent American history of non-interventionism. You may be surprised at who held that position. They weren't exactly communists.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 2:37PM

You're misrepresenting, once again, what I said. I said that non-interventionist Libertarianism is just as Leftist as the Religious non-interventionism is.

All one has to do is go to their website and read their platform. For some reason Ryan, you refuse to face reality.

I said that whoEVER holds the opinion that America is the Agressor, and blames America for Terrorism, and that our government is terroristic because we bomb a countries we are at war with are comrades with the Left.

No Ryan, it isn't because "I believe it's true." It's because it IS true.

Whatever scorn that happens to be heaped upon those who speak as the enemy speaks and believes is rightly brought on.

Ryan| 7.6.10 @ 4:58PM

Non-interventionism is, and has always been, INDEPENDANT of political ideology.

If you study history, you will understand that is the truth.

It is simply a single issue that parts of the left and the right agree on.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 6:09PM

Sure, Ryan. That's why it is part of the Libertarian platform, and why it is what the Paleo-Cons are about, right?

It is not, and never will be part of the Republican platform. This is why Republicans are despised by them, but also why they run as Republicans in order to get elected. Their political ideology is in the minority. And a political ideology it certainly is. Mr. Tooley's entire article exposes it perfectly well.

Tim*| 7.6.10 @ 11:59PM

Read Klein's Blog on Mitch Daniels Libertarian Philosophy .

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 8:18AM

Exactly. I know you're being a little sarcastic with your first statement here, but it actually hits the nail on the head.
Paleoconservatives and libertarians (who are fiscally responsible), and the hard left (who isn't) are opposite each other in many aspects, except on their non-interventionism.

The "paleo" in paleocon is essentially a promotion of the old ideals of early-1900s Republican (and some Democrat) conservatism pre-WWI. Up until the Germans directly offered to the Mexicans to regain the Southwest (the Zimmerman Telegram), the US was largely uninvolved in European wars for a LONG time and had no real interest until that point.

Honestly, they ask questions that we need to hear; I think that they're just unreasonable in the answers that they want.

And I will be nice to them, and mostly respect their position, because I know where it comes from.

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 8:38AM

“The left’s “original sin” is utopianism… It is the left’s utopianism that has produced its “anti-Western predispositions”… the belief in an alternate world to replace the one into which he has been born. ~David Horowitz, repentant former Communist.

"Those identifying themselves as Constitutional Republicans, as did Debra Medina, dream of a profoundly transformed America. In this “Constitutional Utopia,” free from the “military-industrial complex,” America would no longer be controlled by greedy corporations and global bankers who plunder the world. Freedom fighters everywhere “would no longer be terrorists since America wouldn’t be an occupier.” We would withdraw to pristine isolationism, a Daniel Boone wilderness with virtually no government involvement in our lives. Of course, initial massive government regulation would be needed to bring about the country’s liberation from the Big Corporations now enslaving us. Once the people are free from the "Military-Industrial Neo-Cons", power would be returned to the small businesses and individuals.
Nihilism is the second element of the Leftist mind-set, it is the bitter hatred for any manifestation of American world intervention. Withdrawal of American military influence is a common theme for the Drs. Paul and sympathizers." ~Frontpagemag.com

There you have it. The non-interventionist mind. It is indeed Leftist, rabid, hateful, and WRONG.

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 8:52AM

Were the Republicans non-interventionists in the early 20th century?

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 8:57AM

You're confusing the term "utopia" as strictly left-wing as well.

It isn't. It's a generic term for a perfect world. Both the right and left have their idealists who believe in a utopia.

If I'm wrong, how?

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 9:14AM

“Today the Left is still divided over its plans for the future, but these plans pale into insignificance in the face of its real passion which is its nihilistic antagonism towards the United States the metropolis at the center of the global capitalist system, and Israel, its imperialist pawn in the Muslim world. The left’s overweening hatred of global capitalism – “globalization” – which is its energizing force, explains how it can make alliances with Islamic fundamentalists who share the same enemy.”
“In the section of Unholy Alliance called The Mind of the Left, I show how this psychological trope distorts and energizes the vision of leftists across the political spectrum…I explain how the left’s religious need for a social redemption overcomes such differences and forges the coalition which includes…Islamofascists as well. This coalition is most obvious and visible in the global crusade of Islamist fundamentalists and secular leftists to produce a second Holocaust of the Jews in the Middle East.” ~David Horowitz.

"Mr. Horowitz set out to explain why disparate Leftists put aside conflicting political agendas to unite against the War in Iraq. He could easily extend the boundaries to include those following the Ron Paul Revolution. Dr. Rand Paul spoke of forming a coalition with the Left to “defeat the Military-Industrial Complex,” a move that would eliminate America’s presence in the Middle-East, contributing as effectively as the Left to the Holocaust of which Mr. Horowitz wrote." ~Frontpagemag.com

Sorry Ryan. I'm on the side of the truth, and wherever it takes me. Non-interventionism of today, as espoused by the Libertarian party, and the Paleo-Cons is indeed in league with the Left. It is exactly why the Libertarians have to run as Republicans in order to get elected, because they KNOW that they are unelectable due to their Leftist philosophy which is deeply anti-American.

It seems to me that you are the one who needs to do some learning, and if you already know, need to take a stand against it. At least with your mouth.

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 10:28AM

I'm not saying you're completely wrong - because I mostly agree with you that non-interventionism is terrible policy; I just think that you unjustly oversimplify the relationship of non-interventionists, and lump them all in the same boat when the situation is far more complex, particularly historically.

Libertarians and paleocons are fiscally responsible. Many paleocons are even to the right on social issues.

I think the better question is this - given a choice, would you vote for Rand Paul or Bill Clinton? One is a non-interventionist, the other one isn't.

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 12:36PM

It's worse than a terrible policy, it is a flawed philosophy, as this article points out. And it isn't complex at all, it's real simple. And there's not a need to get into what George Washington may or may not do in this present world situation. That's an oh so phony argument that these Leftist liars put forth.

And the question isn't whether I'd vote for Clinton or a nonnie, the question is, would America want a President who believes in this Leftist philosophy of non-interventionism, or not? I say it wouldn't. At least I pray it wouldn't.

Though the non-interventionist Libertarians must run as Republicans in order to even get elected for this very reason, just like the Democrats must run as conservatives in order to get elected, they are nothing but Leftist wolves in Republican's clothing. That's a fact and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Comparing fiscal responsibilty and therefore they're somehow acceptable is like saying a candidate is pro-chioce but he's fiscally responsible~ another typical Leftist argument. And I'm not interested.

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 1:42PM

I think I can ask one question that may clear this up for you, because you still can't see that non-interventionism is not exclusive to the right or the left.

Is Pat Buchanan a liberal or a conservative?

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 4:08PM

Ryan doesn't like to take firm stands between right and wrong. Left and Right.

The common thread that runs through the non-interventionism and the Paleo-Con mindset is big time anti Israel. Why do you think they despise conservatives who back Israel so much and refer to us as "Israel-firsters and Neo-Cons? It's a truly warped thinking and belief system. Leftist to the hilt. As explained.

Isn't Pat Buchanan known for this? Isn't this why he could not be elected President? America isn't interested in non-interventionist candidates for President, thankfully. No matter how "otherwise conservative" they may try and be.

I think that should clear it up for ya.

Ryan| 7.8.10 @ 8:12AM

Where have I not made a firm position on the wrong of non-interventionism?

Non-interventionism is wrong. I'm not sure how that message didn't come across from me. Please re-read everything that I have written here.

I'm simply trying to get you to consider that it's just not a leftist or rightist policy position. That's all.

Pat Buchanan is clearly a conservative, and always has been. He's non-interventionist.

Margie| 7.8.10 @ 1:18PM

Ryan,

If you can't understand how it's a Leftist position then I don't know what more to say!

I'd say that so-called conservatives take that stance. It isn't a conservative stance. They are trying to redefine conservatism. Why do you think we are attacked and called Neo-Cons, Israel-Firsters, & etc.? It is because they want to shove us out of the arena. Forget it, it ain't happening. The anti-war Leftist philosophy is in the Democrat party, and they are in agreement on the issue. That's where it and they belong, is, and should stay. By non-interventionists registering as Republicans to get elected, well let them keep trying, but their Leftist views are always going to be found out, and rejected!

Seek| 7.6.10 @ 10:44AM

Right you are.

Try arguing with a typical Ron Paul supporter about the main reason for the 9/11 attacks. You'll get nowhere. They seethe at the mere thought that the terrorist acts were anything but healthy reactions to U.S. busybody interventionism. Indeed, they balk at even using the word "terrorist."

Patrick| 7.6.10 @ 10:56AM

I've usually chalked this up to the paleocon loathing the neocon.

I'm not saying that proper loathing of liberalism, albeit stale liberalism from fifty years ago, is ungrounded. What I am saying is that the paleocon reaction to 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are uncharacteristically emotional responses.

It's one thing to fight passionately about policy, and quite another to scream as to drown out all other voices.

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 8:58AM

I think that's my problem with most of them. They're so adamant, so over-the-top, and so mean about it.

There are legitimate questions that non-interventionists can ask; their problem is that they demand that there is only one answer, and it's theirs.

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 12:57PM

Uh, funny you should say this, Ryan. Yet you take issue with me when I dare to say so!

Odd.

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 1:38PM

No, my issue is that you consider them absolute leftists based on their non-interventionism.

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 4:13PM

When one ascribes to a Leftist philosophy, one becomes an enemy of the Right.

One plus one does equal two, Ryan.

Ryan| 7.8.10 @ 8:07AM

The problem is that we're not dealing with two numbers.

We're dealing with multiple factors that line up to multiple political philosophies.

One deviation from modern conservatism does NOT make one a radical leftist.

Margie| 7.8.10 @ 1:20PM

Ryan,
Now we're carrying on this conversation in 2 places. My bad, I started it.

This "one deviation" is an entire philosophy shared with the Left. There's the rub.

Dneal| 7.6.10 @ 10:01AM

True Christian are citizens of the Kingdom of God. We are merely sojourners in the kingdoms of this fallen world. As for the United States - this country works to tear down and persecute all forms of true Christian faith. The US formally and legally told God He was not welcomed in the public schools in 1962 (end of prayer). The US kills the most innocent of society through abortion (fueled through politics). The truth is: "whats to celebrate?"

Ryan| 7.6.10 @ 10:38AM

"...this country works to tear down and persecute all forms of true Christian faith." Is a massive overstatement. We don't kill Christians for their religion here. We don't actively seek to close churches. Yes, there are rabid church-and-state separatists out there who have pushed the government to massively overstep the position, but we are FAR from open persecution.

Patrick| 7.6.10 @ 11:18AM

Dneal confuses the slippery slope for the destination. Even so, I do not like where this slope is headed either.

Even so, all is not lost, and we do not need to hit rock bottom before we change course. While Dneal bemoans the loss of prayer in public schools, perhaps this gives an opportunity to abolish those horrid monuments to socialism.

Who do you trust with the education of your children, the teacher's union or your local parish?

Ryan| 7.7.10 @ 8:58AM

I trust me with my kids' education.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 11:00AM

Dneal,

Jesus died for right and wrong. He went to war with the Devil and died in our place for our sins. Those who have laid down their lives so that we could be free have made the greatest sacrifice a man could possibly make.

Remember~ "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jn. 15:13.

That's why we celebrate. Do not be discouraged, for~
"And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart." Gal. 6:9.

There is plenty to be encouraged about as there are millions of Patriots who love America as you do, and some of us are right here. Don't be a quitter! Take heart and join us in the good fight.

DNeal| 7.6.10 @ 12:05PM

Margie,

You miss the point all together. Your patriotism and love of a worldly kingdom has blinded you. Your hope should be in Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God - not in transforming this country. I am simply pointing out a couple of things to reveal the patriot's misplaced faith. The ungodly muse: Job 21:15, "What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?" The United States of America agreed and removed all prayer from public schools in 1962. Honestly look at the condition of the schools prior to 1962 and then after (as in today). Any greatness America had has been lost. God was legally shown the door.

I was born in 1961 and have lived to see tremendous change in this country for the worse. Does anyone think that America is becoming more godly? Is America's political system drawing closer to God?

Jesus Christ never attempted to change Rome. This world is fallen and evil. Jesus Christ came to turn the hearts of men unto God. It is Christ's spilt blood that saves you, not the spilt blood of American soldiers.

Your hopes are rooted in this world and should be rooted in God's kingdom. The American patriot seems to think God has commanded us to observe the fourth of July in the Bible. Nonsense!

America the proud shakes her fist at God (ask several million innocent dead babies who had no justice for all). Now, I do not hate America, but rather love God. If America sets herself against God, then you best know that I stand with God.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 12:38PM

Typical holier-than-thou attitude, filled with twists and turns:

Now you are misrepresenting what I've said, so I'll set you straight. Patriotism does not equal or cause a "love for a worldly kingdom." That's a lie. I don't believe in a kingdom on Earth. Well, at least not until the prophecy comes to pass in Rev. 20:3,4&6. where it does say the Righteous will rule on Earth for a time (a thousand years) with Christ when He returns.

And just because one has a desire to see the country "transformed" does not mean one is not hoping in Jesus. Are you a Christian? Do you not live in a free country given to us by God and by the sacrifice of the Men who died in order to secure this freedom? I don't understand the mindset of the Liberal, Christian or non-Christian.

Yes, they took prayer out of schools. THEY being corrupt Leftists. Just as those who voted for Obama (did you?) have "given us" this despicable Socialist~ it wasn't conservatives who voted for him. WE fought him at the ballot box, and with our voices, in warning others.

America isn't lost, but it will be if we sit back and say she is. I'm with those who wish to fight on till the end.

You know as well as I do that it's a fallen world, but God didn't tell us to resign ourselves to be fallen along with it, did He? And that includes fighting for my country in every way possible.

And no, it isn't in the Bible to observe the 4th of July. But there is nothing wrong with a day of remembrance for those who have paid the greatest price in order that we have this free country, and to celebrate that freedom. Not everyone goes and gets drunk, but we do give thanks. What is wrong with that?

Standing with God means standing with the truth, wherever it presents itself, and I believe that God stands with America. He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Me too.

Patrick| 7.6.10 @ 3:12PM

DNeal, you attack Margie unjustly. She would be (and often has been) the first to tell us not to place our trust in men.

As for the rest of your screed against America, I suggest you read the Bible more often, and not let the JW's do it for you.

Yes, we are all fallen, and our nations too are fallen, yet to do nothing but bellyache is the height of arrogance and immaturity.

Christendom did not spring fully formed from the Milvian Bridge, but rather by centuries of earnest Christians working to honor their Lord and Savior on Earth as in Heaven.

Nor was Christendom laid waste by the pen of Marx, but rather by the selfishness and sloth of its people, taking for granted all that God had provided them.

Lastly, that at some time in the future, the Devil may slip his chain, does not make it acceptable to leave your brethren for dead today.

Believer| 7.7.10 @ 10:11AM

DNeal- Because I dont have the ability to get my thoughts across in my comments, they are ridiculed by the Neo this and Libertarian that. but the truth is I should leave my commentary to you as your comments get my points across much better than me, I never wanted to give the impression that I hated America, I just wanted to point out that it's a dieing Nation and politics, left and right are the reason. God Bless

Sheryl| 7.6.10 @ 11:48AM

What there is to celebrate is that we live in the greatest country in the history of the world, by the grace of God. We are certainly not perfect and we have fallen far from what we were meant to be, but we should be on our knees every day thanking God for this great nation, and, at the same time praying that this mighty ship will be righted. We are the last best hope for this tired world, and, again, we should be praying to God that we take that responsibility seriously once again. Whats to celebrate?! Wow.

Petronius| 7.6.10 @ 11:21AM

Moral indignation by hindsight has become the utility club in the Left's bag of treachery. It's worst aspect is the successful use of to nullify moral cowardice. But it does not justify their pacifism; only their passivity. When threatened by predatory behavior of others failure to resist ennobles them because they so crave the innocence of an infantile existence. And they wonder why muslims take such delight in killing Americans.
They want the baby life catered to by "mommy government" with unqualified love. Maybe we should replace the eagle on the great seal with a lemming. Remove the words "In God We Trust" from our currency and insert "I Want My Mommy". Outlaw any and all activities and occupations in which a person could suffer any injury. Prevent exposure to anything anybody finds upsetting or dissatisfying. These Epsilon semi-morons are the ones who are maladjusted, not those who are confident and competent. If we can't get them out of our country we should at least move them all to Madison WI. The age of majority there is 6 and those who run the place are the ones who don't drool.

Patrick| 7.6.10 @ 3:25PM

No! We have enough liberals in WI!

As for the baby existence, you may be onto something, as far as much of the Dem voting base is concerned. As for the liberal leadership, well, they are yearning to join in on the tyranny.

Purple Lips| 7.6.10 @ 11:27AM

From the comments I've read, I think our society would have been better off if fuedalism remained. Of course, I would be a lord, baron, or some such aristocrat. And the rest of you would be stuck tiny villages working my fields. But, have no fear. I would allow days of rest during feast days and Sundays. I'm all for doing away with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Equality and Liberty - as long as I'm in charge.

Northern Rebel | 7.6.10 @ 11:56AM

"Canada never revolted, and they seem to be doing just fine."

Do you think being located on America's border may have something to do with that, you fool?

NYC has more cops, than Canada has soldiers. They are free to spend their tax dollars on their pitiful health care system, because we have their back.

Jesus would shake his head in sadness at these lefty-liberal-progressive socialist-communists (whatever their calling themselves this week)

This is only country these faux christians could get away with direct disrespect of their nation, because of the freedom our Constitution gives us. (So far!)

Alan Brooks:

Your sarcastic slap at the south didn't go unnoticed, and degrades our opinion of you as a semi-intelligent, if completely misguided gentleman.

Were there a crisis, I'm sure I'd be safer with a southern American protecting my back, than a snooty condescending elitist wannabe like yourself.

Eddie (Arizona)| 7.6.10 @ 3:15PM

Go git them, let them know tell them what it is they don't want to hear! Yes!

RCV| 7.6.10 @ 8:16PM

Believe me, I'm glad we had our Revolution and enjoy the independence and freedom we have. But in defense of our friends (and they are our friends) in Canada, let me point out on their behalf that Canada's brave soldiers have fought and died in many, many wars at our side and continue to do so today. They've been a good neighbot and ally and I for one won't badmouth them.

fundamentalist| 7.6.10 @ 12:52PM

Jim Wallis is not evangelical. He is part of the modernist movement that denies the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the accuracy of the Bible.

Kylie Estwick| 7.6.10 @ 1:10PM

"For this reason, among others, the Left, including the Religious and Evangelical Left, often uniquely despises the American Revolution and the incomparable republic it founded."

Where did you get this from? Alas, the neo-conservative view of history is if it doesnt provide you with the information you need, simply make it up.

BTW, God doesnt allow loopholes. A whole boatload of neo-cons are going to learn that the hard way in the after-life.

Big Leo| 7.6.10 @ 1:44PM

I must admit to an occasional fit of anti-interventionism, especially when South Koreans, Brits, French, or citizens of any of a number of other countries that would not exist today are doing it. I give the French a little bit of a pass because without their intervention in 1778, it is not likely we would have won our own independence. However, when I consider what the world would be like without American intervention over the last century, I always get over it.

I understand the anabaptist pacifism because many of my ancestors and living relatives are part of that thought system. It is admirable as a way of running a small community but disastrous when applied to large nations. I also noted as a young deputy sheriff that when they were victims of a violent crime, they called us in, guns and all, to sort it all out.

Purpleguy| 7.6.10 @ 2:09PM

"In it, a young pacifist pastor explained why Christians can't "celebrate" having "killed thousands upon thousands of people because they [the British] were taxing us without giving us representation in parliament." - and, if you are pro-life, you have to agree, don't you? Or is it okay to kill when it suits your purpose?

Northern Rebel| 7.6.10 @ 2:48PM

Purpleguy:

The human spirit was created by God, with an innate yearning to be free. Those humans that would seek to inhibit another man's freedom,

DESERVE TO GET WAXED!

Using the term "Pro-life" to describe a revolution that produced the greatest example of human freedom in human history, is specious, at best.

There is a big difference fighting to live your life in freedom from other men's oppression, and slaughtering an innocent unborn child in the womb, that has the same human rights as you.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you're not.

Nice try, kid.

Northern Rebel| 7.6.10 @ 2:51PM

I meant to say, "downplay a revolution" not describe, as I mistakenly wrote.

I am almost as disgusted by typos, as I am purpleguy's deviant philosophy.

Al Adab| 7.6.10 @ 4:49PM

My typose (sic) get me in trouble too NR. Darn arthritis to say nothing of typing not as fast as I think.

Eddie| 7.6.10 @ 3:12PM

People wake up! The power of the this Nation rest on the People, WE the People! Not those greedy politicians! What needs to be done is to repeal amendments 11-27! Lets the states select it's own rep's. As it is now those DAMN bankers are buying the votes for these crooks! That is how that village idiot from kenya was given the presidency, not elected! One more thing, the federal reserve act must be repealed also. Then this nation can get back on the Gold & Silver Leagle Tender, not the fiat money that is issued to day. Once this is done, then the so called debt of this country will no longer exist, it will go back to those who created it, the DAMN bakers. That makes the banker responsible to pay off china. Then we get a fresh start. I'm done.

Al Adab| 7.6.10 @ 4:34PM

Pacifism is fine, indeed may be preferred, for Christians. It is a personal obligation of belief.

However, it is not an option for nations. Just as other tenents of the Christian Faith such as Charity imply personal obligations for the believer, they are not to be forced through governmental compulsion. In fact could we not say that Charity under compulsion is no charity at all?

gene hauber| 7.6.10 @ 4:47PM

I'M A RETREAD CATHOLIC THAT USED TO SMIRK WHEN I SAW A DILAPIDATED SCHOOL BUS WITH SOME BIBLE SCHOOL'S OR CAMP'S NAME EMBLAZONED ON THE SIDE.

I DON'T ANYMORE....I AM ONE OF THEM ONLY BECAUSE I AM CONVINCED THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND ANY RELIGION THAT DIFFERS "IN ANY WAY" IS PUTTING THEIR CONGREGANTS IMMORTAL SOULS AT GREAT RISK.

THE BIBLE ADMONISHES INTENSELY AGAINST FALSE GODS AND IDOLATRY, YET THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE "CHURCH OF PETER", SO THEY SAY, IS RIFE WITH IMAGRY AND IDOLATRY.
JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS AND WAS RESURRECTED AFTER THREE DAYS FOR ALL OF THE SINS OF MANKIND, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.

IN JOHN 14:6 HE TELLS US THAT THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN IS TO BELIEVE, BY FAITH, IN HIM........................ANYTHING LESS AND YOU ARE DOOMED.

IT'S NOT REAL HARD, HE KNOWS WE ARE SINNERS AND THAT'S WHY HE DIED FOR US. HE UNDERSTANDS. BUT HE WANTS YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES HE HAS SET FOR US ALSO.

BE VERY CAREFUL WITH YOUR ETERNAL SOUL.

Patrick| 7.6.10 @ 5:35PM

Your caps lock key is stuck on. It is located on the left side of your keyboard near the lettter "A".

The Catholic/Protestant shout-fest is more applicable in the articles on the Catholic Church, which happen about every other week. Please be more on topic next time.

If you do decide to contribute to the above mentioned shout-fest, I suggest you bring more substantive to the table than that.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 7:31PM

Amen, Gene Hauber. He is risen, indeed.

Tim*| 7.6.10 @ 10:56PM

Uh Oh !

Apocalyptic NeoCon Foreign Policy Head Case Lady is at it again.

Margie| 7.6.10 @ 11:05PM

I see You've left your rubber room again, Toddy.

Margie| 7.7.10 @ 9:21AM

Tim* here is exhibit A. He is a rabid, hateful, insane non-interventionist who despises conservatives who are also proud to defend Israel, and who are Christian. Tim* is a Catholic who despises the fact that I am not a Catholic, and not afraid to say so, but I defend my Christian faith according to the Bible, and not according to Catholic doctrine. Tim* cannot fathom that I do not believe what he believes and therefore feels the need to "stalk" me around this website attacking me with false accusations.

He won't succeed, and I'm not going anywhere. He is a liar and a fraud.

davelnaf| 7.6.10 @ 9:37PM

I know the argument: we have to let our readers know what the Left is up to. OK, fair enough. But I for one would prefer not to read or listen to what these people have to say about anything. They are a particularly twisted lot and the less we hear of their fulminations against reality and normal people the better my day will be.

Beverly Nuckols| 7.7.10 @ 12:10AM

We Christians must model ourselves after Jesus, Who after all, is the God of Abraham and not a pacifist. He cleared the Temple of the moneychangers, which was neither passive nor non-interventionalist. The act of being Immanuel is certainly not non-interventionalist.
The Declaration of Independence affirmed that our rights are endowed by that same God to us all as created. These rights are not mere ideas to be recognized or protected at the whim of the most powerful or the majority. The men and women who found "these truths to be self-evident" could not have been passive in the face of the infringement of their rights.
Yes, I'll celebrate the defense of these rights.

Believer| 7.7.10 @ 6:25PM

Beverly Nuckols- The 4th of July is a holiday celibrating a Country that is no more, however great and glorious it was it has gone the way of every great empire of the past. The modern American is patriotic to a story of an America that brought freedom unheard of until its birth, but now immorality, drugs, and entertainment are the things that are important to us. As America falls and it surely will, make preporations now to save your family.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.7.10 @ 3:10AM

" Religiously Dissing America's Independence Day ...."

Or - how to love the boot on ones' neck!

nike air forces| 7.7.10 @ 5:12AM

I agree Palin Power Strikes Home

gene hauber| 7.7.10 @ 12:55PM

HEY PATRICK,
I AM HARD OF HEARING, THAT'S WHY I TALK OUT LOUD.
GREAT ARGUMENT, WHATEVER IT WAS THAT YOU SAID........GEEEEZZZZ, WHAT A CRETIN!

Steve Stanley| 7.12.10 @ 3:12PM

History is just one damn thing after another. Our world today has been built upon the murders and exploitation of countless souls. Jesus shows us another way -- God's way. In fact He is the Way and He still wants us to follow Him. It is Jesus who shows us what God is truly like while most of us have been digging in the scriptures for centuries in order to justify our violence. God is still waiting for us to listen. We should pay attention to jarring voices that we need to wake us from our slumbers.

logan laituri| 7.21.10 @ 5:04PM

hauerwas is not anabaptist, he's united methodist (which is the same denom tooley claims), teaching at a methodist seminary. c'mon, how can you criticize a dude you don't even know and who is also communion with you? seriously

Kurt Willems| 7.22.10 @ 2:46AM

Follow my linked blog for my Open Letter to Mark Tooley which is in response to this article...

Groans From Within blog