Christianity

The Corporate Christian Conspiracy?

A historian tries to blame "Christian libertarians" for the idea that America is a Christian nation.

|

One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America, by Kevin M. Kruse, Basic Books, 352 pages, $29.99

One Nation, Under Gods: A New American History, by Peter Manseau, Little, Brown and Co., 469 pages, $28

In his much-lauded new book One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America, the Princeton historian Kevin M. Kruse promises to tell us the real reason so many people think America is a "Christian nation." As telegraphed by his bolder-than-the-evidence subtitle, Kruse believes that modern American Christian religiosity was not grown organically from native soil but planted in our minds with malice aforethought by corporations in the 1950s. Their secret purpose: to crush the New Deal.

Many historians—particularly Jonathan Herzog, in his 2011 book The Spiritual-Industrial Complex—have made a thorough case that the religious fervor of the '50s was rooted in Cold War anxieties. These fears were certainly shaped and guided by state, corporate, and other interests, as Herzog stresses, but such efforts could not have been effective had they not resonated with the broader population, making '50s religiosity more a diffuse public reaction than a deliberately conceived plot. Kruse acknowledges that theory, but insists that it pays insufficient attention to some religious-ideological interest groups funded by the pre–Cold War rich who were motivated more to oppose the New Deal than to contain the Soviet threat.

America's intelligentsia are perpetually attracted to theories in which beliefs they disapprove of and/or are perplexed by do not arise from independent agency but are imposed on an easily duped populace. (See, for example, the conspiracies pinning the Tea Party movement on a plutocratic propaganda machine that hypnotized dumb Americans into acting against their own interests.) Kruse tosses in another popular, if more obscure, trend in ideological historiography by inaccurately conflating libertarianism with the more well-known conservative movement. Indeed, one of the main villains in Kruse's version of 20th century America is that curious breed he calls the "Christian libertarian."

Here's Kruse's brief: After World War II, the Christian libertarians rebranded their free market, anti–New Deal ideas as a form of religiously rooted Americanism. The players included Spiritual Mobilization (a genuinely libertarian advocacy group that aimed its efforts mostly at Protestant clergy), the Rev. Billy Graham, and the National Council for Christian Leadership, a prayer group movement aimed at prominent politicians and captains of industry.

These little-understood clandestine forces, Kruse argues, laid the groundwork for the Eisenhower administration's efforts to append "under God" to the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust" to stamps and paper currency. (The latter phrase had already been on coins since 1864, a thesis-damaging point that Kruse notes then promptly ignores.) He also credits the free market evangelists with helping inspire Eisenhower-era prayer meetings in executive branch gatherings from the cabinet to the Pentagon.

How did this scheme operate, specifically? Via pamphlets, radio programs, and national rallies. Pastors giving freedom-oriented talks on the Fourth of July. Newspaper and magazine ads depicting "the American Way of Life" as a monument with "Political and Economic Rights" on top and "Fundamental Belief in God" at the base. And via constant, massively successful speaking tours, particularly those by Billy Graham.

One Nation Under God

That all happened, but it hardly proves that the Eisenhower administration, prompted by corporate paymasters and inspired by libertarians, "invented" and imposed the idea of an unbreakable link between American politics and the Christian religion. Kruse himself reminds us that the New Deal's architect, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "shrewdly drew on spiritual themes and imagery throughout his career," noting that "his first inaugural address was so laden with references to scripture that the National Bible Press published an extensive chart linking his text with the 'Corresponding Biblical Quotation.'" Roosevelt also deliberately tried to revive the "language of the so-called Social Gospel to justify the creation of the modern welfare state." It stretches logic to blame the postwar right for "inventing" America as a Christian nation.

The book is filled with such self-refuting details. Billy Graham is shown drawing half a million people over a few weeks in Portland, Oregon, and then turning around and doing the same in Atlanta, which suggests a mass popular movement rather than the top-down creation of wealthy propagandists. Kruse tells us that executives used religiously themed advertising as "a tool to improve the public image of their companies"; why, exactly, would that work if they were imposing their Christianity?

Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark said in 1950 that "no country or civilization can last unless it is founded on Christian values." Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking at a National Prayer Breakfast in 1954, stated bluntly that "we are a Christian nation." In 1947, when President Harry Truman was trying to get the Vatican to join the Cold War, he wrote: "Your Holiness, this is a Christian nation." Truman also made religion the linchpin of his 1948 State of the Union address.

Can Kruse really believe that all these members of the political establishment were going boldly where the American people had not yet trodden? The movements Kruse accuses of warping minds were, both by his own evidence and by historical evidence outside his narrow scope, fulfilling pre-existing desires. That is what truly successful propaganda efforts tend to do—what they have to do.

We were never a nation with an official established church, Christian or otherwise. But there is plenty of reason to see the U.S. as culturally, dominantly, Christian. At America's founding, a majority of states allowed only professed Christians to hold office. When Thomas Jefferson donated his books to Congress, an enormous culture war erupted because the collection contained tomes that questioned or denied Christianity. President Abraham Lincoln was declaring national days of prayer in the middle of the 19th century. When President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 tried to take "in God we trust" off our coins, public opposition bowled him over. The popular turn-of-the-20th-century public figure William Jennings Bryan—who Kruse identifies only as a "great evangelist for old time religions and plain folk politics"—won the Democratic Party's presidential nomination three times, a fact Kruse does not see fit to mention.

One Nation, Under Gods

Somehow, in a book purporting to tell the secret history of a fabricated national Christian identity, it never occurs to Kruse to ask why people who are trying to convince Americans of certain things—like the superiority of free enterprise or the evil of Communism—might rely on Christian arguments and iconography. An obvious answer to the unasked question: because Americans were to a very large degree apt to find such arguments resonant and convincing.

Another new book with a confusingly similar title undercuts Kruse's thesis even more. One Nation, Under Gods, by the memoirist, novelist, and historian Peter Manseau, is a curious and rewarding series of acutely observed and felt character studies from American history, glamorizing figures on the religious periphery. Manseau writes detailed chapters about more than a dozen fascinating figures whose wide-ranging spirituality he sees shaping the American experience in often unseen but always powerful ways.

Manseau's subjects range from Mustafa Zemmouri, a Muslim forced to convert to Christianity who came to the Americas as a 16th century Spanish colonizer and ended up a legendary healer with the Zuni Indians, to Handsome Lake, an Iroquois prophet who may have had a second-hand influence on Mormonism founder Joseph Smith. There's Jacob Lumbrozo, an early Jew in the Maryland colony who ran afoul of its so-called "Act of Toleration" for questioning Jesus' divinity, and also John Starr Cooke, whose 20th century metaphysical peregrinations through the mystic east and beyond were a subterranean precursor to burgeoning hippiedom.

Manseau sympathizes with these colorful and brave figures from America's spiritual margins, and he appreciates how those margins, in often unacknowledged ways, shaped American religion and culture. But his stories make obvious that the mainstream against which many of these characters chafed was undeniably Christian. As he writes, "religious skepticism in the colonial era was taboo even among professional radicals."

So much for Kevin Kruse's revisionist scoop that groups whose politics he abhors somehow "created" the notion of a Christian America in the 1950s.

As for the specter of "Christian libertarianism," in Kruse's hands the phrase is confusing at best, plain mistaken at worst. One Nation Under God begins with an accurate enough examination of Spiritual Mobilization, a radically free market and anti–New Deal group from Southern California most active in the 1940s and '50s, but fails utterly to connect the organization to the postwar trends Kruse so loathes.

Spiritual Mobilization was in essence a libertarian group disguised as a Christian one. It was run in its 1950s heyday by an atheist (and later acid-drenched mystic) lawyer named James Ingebretsen to push libertarianism using language and symbols he thought would resonate. American Christians, the organization suggested, should ask the following libertarian-flavored questions of government actions: "Does…the program, platform, or act encourage the Christian principle of love or the collectivist principle of compulsion? If it proposes to take the property or income of some for the specific benefit or use of others, does it violate the Commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal'? Is it necessary to use the compulsion of political means in this instance or could the ends be accomplished by Christian co-operation and non-political voluntary associations?"

Getting prayer into the White House or schools was no part of Spiritual Mobilization's mission, nor did it attempt to introduce Christian language into national ritual. Ingebretsen's crew were advocates of untrammeled liberty and free markets. Even Kruse has to admit that the real-world effects he tries to attribute to Spiritual Mobilization as a "corporate America"–backed pressure group had nothing to do with what the organization was trying to achieve.

In conflating "Christian libertarianism" with a larger conservative movement toward greater public religiosity, Kruse elides one of the most important differences between libertarianism and its right-wing cousin: their attitudes about the Cold War. As Kruse notes, Billy Graham, one of the real linchpins of the story he's telling, "closely followed the Republican script" on Korea and plumped for the full unleashing of American military might on that hapless nation. Spiritual Mobilization, on the other hand, was running in its journal Faith and Freedom lines like, "If we had agreed to a cease-fire…or had pulled out of Korea altogether (even better), we would have saved thousands of American and Korean lives."

Kruse's book does offer a well-detailed political narrative about how we ended up with the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and the phrase "In God we trust" on our paper money and stamps. It also thoroughly relates the cultural, political, and judicial battles over prayer and the Bible in school (battles lost badly by the Christian conservatives whose influence he stresses). But Kruse should have considered ending his narrative on page 72, when he admits that the fresh and exotic "Christian libertarian" story he began in chapter one with Spiritual Mobilization more or less ended in the early Eisenhower years, when "religion would no longer be used to tear down the central state, but instead to prop it up."

Advertisement

NEXT: What We Saw at the "Can We Take a Joke?" Premiere

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “These little-understood clandestine forces, Kruse argues, laid the groundwork for the Eisenhower administration’s efforts to append “under God” to the pledge of allegiance and “In God We Trust” to stamps and paper currency.”

    Want to know another basic fact that annihilates his thesis? Here’s another quote from Eisenhower:

    “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

    So the guy who Kruse uses as an example of one of these Christian libertarians out to eliminate the New Deal outright said you couldn’t roll back the New Deal. It’s obvious this guy isn’t a historian, he’s a left-wing propagandist that leaves out facts that don’t fit his thesis.

    1. Here’s another quote from Eisenhower:

      If we see the total context of Eisenhower’s letter to his brother, which has been omitted here, he was describing American society, not necessarily his personal preferences, and he has so far been proven correct. Your partial quote, when seen in context, is actually an example of the principle he had described in that same letter. (the full quote is too long for a comment here)

      http://www.snopes.com/politics…..social.asp

      t’s obvious this guy isn’t a historian, he’s a left-wing propagandist that leaves out facts that don’t fit his thesis.

      Was it a right-wing propagandist who left out the context of Eisenhower’s letter to his brother?

      And the burden of proof is on you, that the named programs could be rolled back, or even come close. And since the Republicans also suck up to these programs, GOP actions prove Eisenhower to have been correct (so far).

      Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this ? in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one.

      Hmnm, Ike opposes a centralization of government functions as being a threat — to even the Constitution — a threat that even Rothbard would fear (Not that Rothbard would argue the same solution, since he was a pure theorist and never a policy wonk)

    2. The JBS is right, Ike was a Commie.

  2. For Christian libertarians look no further than the Paulista Cult. Its purpose is to is to show bigots, theocrats and other assorted statists how to use liberty-sounding rhetoric to advance their agenda. Most notably a perverse version of states rights, originated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism. It’s primary function is to label as “intrusive federal government” any attempt to defend fundamental rights as the Constitution requires the federal government to do.

    It’s the same excuse used in 1957, when Orval Faubus used an armed militia to keep nine black kids from registering a Little Rock’s Central High School. Eisenhower sent armed troops with orders to use force, if needed, to defend the equal rights of black school kids, under the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.

    Faubus caved, but attacked an abuse of federal power … precisely as Ron Paul does today by claiming “rogue judges” overturned parts of DOMA. Hysterically, Paul supported federal power AGAINST the states’ definition of marriage … while claiming to defend federalism! His cult ate it up, as falsely legitimizing even the most extreme homophobia, because — of course — the 9th and 14th amendments are merely a plot by George Soros and the Bilderbergs to impose their New World Order.

    1. Your translator has arrived! I speak “Hihn” pretty well.

      For Christian libertarians look no further than the Paulista Cult. Its purpose is to is to show bigots, theocrats and other assorted statists how to use liberty-sounding rhetoric to advance their agenda.

      Alinsky would be proud! After all, championing less government is “bigoted”, “theocratic”, and “statist”.

      Most notably a perverse version of states rights, originated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism.

      I thought states “rights” were enshrined in the 10th amendment passed before 1800.

      It’s primary function is to label as “intrusive federal government” any attempt to defend fundamental rights as the Constitution requires the federal government to do.

      I think Hihn is mad that Christian libertarians really don’t like killing unborn babies.

      It’s the same excuse used in 1957, when Orval Faubus used an armed militia to keep nine black kids from registering a Little Rock’s Central High School.

      Obviously Orval Faubus was a “Christian” libertarian. That’s the only explanation.

      (continued)

      1. precisely as Ron Paul does today by claiming “rogue judges” overturned parts of DOMA. Hysterically, Paul supported federal power AGAINST the states’ definition of marriage … while claiming to defend federalism!

        Hihn is actually right here if he’s claiming that this position isn’t libertarian. As he’s claiming it’s not federalism, he’s wrong. Federalism =/= libertarianism. Thankfully, this is a libertarian site and most of the readers already know this.

        His cult ate it up, as falsely legitimizing even the most extreme homophobia, because — of course — the 9th and 14th amendments are merely a plot by George Soros and the Bilderbergs to impose their New World Order.

        The Alinsky is showing in the first part of this quote, and obviously the only reason you think that gays shouldn’t marry is because you’re scared of them, or hate them. Obviously.

        Though, give the devil his due, Hihn is correct in stating that the 9th and 14th amendments really should cover this. Of course, by a strict reading of the 9th and 14th amendments, government couldn’t do anything at all as anything it does infringes on all kinds of rights. As I’m an anarcho-capitalist (NAP FTW), that’s totally fine with me. Any Court reading the Bill of Rights strictly would have to rule that any government is impossible, and disband it. Maybe that’s why they simply ignore them?

        1. MORE from the cult!

          precisely as Ron Paul does today by claiming “rogue judges” overturned parts of DOMA. ?.

          Hihn is actually right here if he’s claiming that this position isn’t libertarian.

          I never said that (yawn)

          As he’s claiming it’s not federalism, he’s wrong.

          Umm, the 9th Amendment.
          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          What are the “others” (lol)
          Unenumerated POWERS are reserved to states. But unenumerated RIGHTS are reserved to the people. In any government of delegated powers, so ? rights are superior to powers!!!

          Fundamental human rights are NOT limited to those stated in the constitution

          the only reason you think that gays shouldn’t marry is because you’re scared of them, or hate them. Obviously.

          (yawn) WHERE IS THE POWER DELEGATED?? ON WHAT AUTHORITY DO PAULISTA FASCISTS (AND THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN) DENY EQUAL RIGHTS … to anyone?

          Of course, by a strict reading of the 9th and 14th amendments, government couldn’t do anything at all as anything it does infringes on all kinds of rights.

          “Strictly speaking, powers cannot be delegated to government … the constitution forbids government from its only legitimate function”

          The cult is precisely that gullible (bwaaaa haaaaa)

          1. I never said that

            I know. I was using rhetoric. You were claiming it wasn’t Federalism (which it was). Why you didn’t claim it wasn’t libertarian is beyond me.

            Unenumerated POWERS are reserved to states. But unenumerated RIGHTS are reserved to the people. In any government of delegated powers, so ? rights are superior to powers! Fundamental human rights are NOT limited to those stated in the constitution

            Excepting that you forgot that the States already had Constitutions and had their powers enumerated before the 9th amendment was written/passed. Also, the 9th amendment was used to constrain the Fed, not the States.

            WHERE IS THE POWER DELEGATED?? ON WHAT AUTHORITY DO PAULISTA FASCISTS (AND THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN) DENY EQUAL RIGHTS … to anyone?

            Any State Constitution that gave that State power over marriage would have done so. We both know this is immoral, but that’s Federalism for you.

            “Strictly speaking, powers cannot be delegated to government … the constitution forbids government from its only legitimate function” The cult is precisely that gullible

            Strictly speaking, the 9th amendment would deny the Federal government from doing anything as anything it could do would necessarily impede some right. Hence the reason why I’m not a Federalist.

            (yawn), (bwaa haa)

            When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

      2. Paulista cult humiliated!

        For Christian libertarians look no further than the Paulista Cult. Its purpose is to is to show bigots, theocrats and other assorted statists how to use liberty-sounding rhetoric to advance their agenda.

        Alinsky would be proud!

        Coward changes subject!.

        Most notably a perverse version of states rights, originated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism.
        I thought states “rights” were enshrined in the 10th amendment

        Brainwashing PROVEN! 9th amendment denies ALL levels of government ANY power over fundamental rights. Sorry, puppet, states do not have powers that have never been delegated!!

        It’s primary function is to label as “intrusive federal government” any attempt to defend fundamental rights as the Constitution requires the federal government to do.
        I think Hihn is mad that Christian libertarians really don’t like killing unborn babies.

        9th amendment and definition of unalienable, chump!.

        It’s the same excuse used in 1957, when Orval Faubus used an armed militia to keep nine black kids from registering a Little Rock’s Central High School.

        Obviously Orval Faubus was a “Christian” libertarian. That’s the only explanation.

        Shamefully defends using force to deny equal rights ? to black kids … per Ron Paul (vomit)

        Prosecution rests (snicker)

        1. Paulista cult humiliated!

          Hardly

          Coward changes subject!.

          I didn’t know the 10th amendment was only passed by “southern racists… masquerading as federalism”. I didn’t think anyone could mistake that as changing the subject. Perhaps I overestimated.

          Brainwashing PROVEN! 9th amendment denies ALL levels of government ANY power over fundamental rights. Sorry, puppet, states do not have powers that have never been delegated!!

          Until after the Civil War the Bill of Rights were only applied to the Federal Government, not the states. The States’ powers would have been delegated by their respective State Constitutions. Not that I really care, I’m not a Constitutionalist. You’re still wrong though.

          9th amendment and definition of unalienable, chump!

          After over 100 posts, I’ve pinned down your position on the subject, which would be stated as “Unviable unborn humans have no rights yet.” Wrong, but not the subject here. Also, you think that anyone who thinks that those not yet viable have rights already is the very manifestation of evil.

          Shamefully defends using force to deny equal rights ? to black kids … per Ron Paul (vomit)

          No, I didn’t. I pointed out that it was Federalism. That’s why I’m not a Federalist.

          (snicker)

          “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child…”

          1. MORE lies!

            I didn’t know the 10th amendment was only passed by “southern racists… masquerading as federalism”…

            Who said that? Where?

            Until after the Civil War the Bill of Rights were only applied to the Federal Government, not the states.

            Keep proving the insanity of Ron Paul. (You confuse the BOR with the 14th Amendment)

            The States’ powers would have been delegated by their respective State Constitutions.

            Now we have NO defense of fundamental rights. States can do “anything they want.” They can deny interracial marriage, restrict the voluntary sexual activity of consenting adults, all per the Paulist cult and Christian Taliban..

            9th amendment and definition of unalienable, chump!
            After over 100 posts, I’ve pinned down your position on the subject, which would be stated as “Unviable unborn humans have no rights yet.”

            Your bullshit is increasingly pathetic.

            Pay attention. The fetal child’s unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the mother’s unalienable right to Liberty … I did tell you to learn the definition of unalienable. (so you could avoid fucking up again.) And shame on you again for lying about what I said

            No more lies and evasion. On what authority do you deny a woman’s equal and unalienable rights? And why do you reject the definition of unalienable?

            1. Who said that? Where?

              You did. “Most notably a perverse version of states rights, originated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism.” The concept of States “rights” comes from the 10th amendment, ergo those who passed the 10th must have been racists. It’s not my fault your “logic” doesn’t work.

              Keep proving the insanity of Ron Paul. (You confuse the BOR with the 14th Amendment)

              Show me where the Bill of Rights was applied to a State before the Civil War. That’s what the 14th was passed for!

              Now we have NO defense of fundamental rights. States can do “anything they want.”

              Potentially, and why I’m not a Federalist.

              Pay attention…

              Oh, I have, more than any other sane person would have. Your views on the precisely equal rights of the mother and baby are a red herring, whether you know it or not. After asking countless times, I finally got the answer I was looking for when you told me that any child that is “viable” has rights and the mother may not kill it, and it may be killed by her until is “viable”.

              So now there is finally a method to the madness.

              On what authority do you deny a woman’s equal and unalienable rights?

              I don’t. I deny your “right” to kill any living human, whether “viable” yet or not.

              And why do you reject the definition of unalienable?

              You have not right to aggress.

              1. dipshit: “I didn’t know the 10th amendment was only passed by “southern racists… masquerading as federalism”…”

                Who said that? Where?

                dipshit: You did. “Most notably a perverse version of states rights, orginated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism.”

                Liar.

                The concept of States “rights” comes from the 10th amendment, ergo those who passed the 10th must have been racists.

                Liar. These are my words:

                …look no further than the Paulista Cult. ? a perverse version of states rights, originated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism.

                The Cult not Amendment. Proof::

                http://bitly.com/1Nc7ARJ

                Show me where the Bill of Rights was applied to a State before the Civil War. That’s what the 14th was passed for!

                The 14th is needed because, ? slaves aren’t citizens in the original constitution! (OMG)

                On what authority do you deny a woman’s equal and unalienable rights?
                I deny your “right” to kill any living human, whether “viable” yet or not.

                Non-responsive

                And why do you reject the definition of unalienable?
                You have not right to aggress.

                WHY you reject the definition?

                You still have four lies to defend,

                1. Liar. These are my words:

                  You name call because apparently understanding the logical ramifications of your statements is beyond you. You said “a perverse version of states rights, originated by southern racists and masquerading as federalism” to which I responded it was the 10th amendment… so what you mean to say is that the 10th amendment was passed only by racists… or you have some unstated argument as to why the 10th amendment wasn’t the originator of that version of federalism.

                  The Cult not Amendment. Proof::

                  Deep linking to your rambling isn’t proof (well, not proof of what you want it to be anyway).

                  The 14th is needed because, ? slaves aren’t citizens in the original constitution! (OMG)

                  Close enough to true, sure.

                  Non-responsive

                  You asked the equivalent to “When did you stop beating your wife?” I answered the question that needed to be answered (In my example it would be “I’ve never beaten my wife.”), not the question you asked. You asked a “Loaded Question”.

                  WHY you reject the definition?

                  All live humans have unalienable rights, even the not-yet-viable unborn. Ergo, to tell you you may not kill a not-yet-viable unborn human violates just as many unalienable rights as telling you that you may not kill any other living human, which is to say precisely zero of them. You have no right to aggress.

              2. I had a dermatologist remove a “living human” because I am an individual and it wasn’t welcome. Women are individuals too, even if pregnant.

                1. I had a dermatologist remove a “living human” because I am an individual and it wasn’t welcome. Women are individuals too, even if pregnant.

                  Poor definition of “human”. You had a part of you removed. The little one is a total human with its own DNA.

            2. Observe that these are the people who believe invisible playmates are a reliable source of whispered factual revelations. They also claim believe that a mythical guru who never wrote a word, and spoke a language they cannot speak, is believable. The book describing the guru also says: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalm 137:9) Naturally they now presume to instruct us that having men with guns endanger the lives of pregnant women by forcing them to reproduce is “the free exercise” of religion, just like burning witches and running extermination camps in Poland was “the free exercise” of Positive Christianity. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

              1. Observe that these are the people who believe invisible playmates are a reliable source of whispered factual revelations. They also claim believe that a mythical guru who never wrote a word, and spoke a language they cannot speak, is believable.

                The dog listens to the man even though it cannot speak man’s language. The dog doesn’t understand the mind of man except when the man explains it.

                As for Psalm 137:9, you don’t really understand justice or you wouldn’t ask. The evil man will have evil done to him. The evil society will have evil done to it.

                Naturally they now presume to instruct us that having men with guns endanger the lives of pregnant women by forcing them to reproduce

                Rape is evil. Murder is also evil. I’m not the one stabbing a living human in the brain.

                Also, your idea that all who follow Christ practice Positive “Christianity”, like the Holy Roman empire was not Holy, Roman, or an Empire, Positive “Christianity” is neither Positive nor Christian, it was Nazi.

                Tell me again how killing the innocent humans is a good thing?

                Veritas Liberabit Vos.

  3. Their secret purpose: to crush the New Deal.

    If it’ll work I say put the 10 Commandments in every courthouse and a cross in every town square!

  4. Wait, there’s a corporate plot to end the New Deal by Christianizing America? And I haven’t heard about it until now?

    Ah, man, I *never* get invited to all the cool conspiracies!

    1. See what you can find out abt the Liberal Party of 1930. It opposed blue laws, communism and the dole, demanded repeal of the 18th amendment and offered backup plans for contingencies short of that, sought separation of church and state and explicitly advocated repeal of all religious laws. Like the LP platform it was not included in “National Party Platforms” published for no other purpose than to omit those two platforms. The guy who organized the party? His name was Church! It forced the Dems to man up to repeal or see Herbert Hoover relected. The Dems were a lot smarter back then than they are now.

  5. The US is a Christian nation, specifically a Protestant Christian nation. The heart of Protestantism is that the individual determines his own relationship with God, God didn’t leave one absolute ruler in charge to tell everybody else how to live their lives. I can see where the Leftists are bothered by people deciding for themselves how to live their lives, much better to have a Pope commanding blind obedience and burning heretics and apostates and unbelievers at the stake. (Well, maybe not burning them. Windmilling them to death in a carbon-neutral manner or something.)

    1. The US is a Christian nation, specifically a Protestant Christian nation

      Umm, who conducred the Salem witchcraft trials?.

      One’s relationship with God is nobody’s freaking business … UNLESS they try to impose their values on others though government force.

      If you mean a nation of Christians, fine. But here’s from the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington, ratified unanimously by the Senate and signed by Adams

      …the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…

  6. religious skepticism in the colonial era was taboo even among professional radicals.

    It paines me to read this.

    1. It paines me to read this.

      (smile)

  7. David Lipscomb could be considered a christian libertarian
    (and is), but he argued strongly that christians should have no part in dealing with government if at all possible.

  8. They dissemble, purposefully ignore the words of Founding Father Patrick Henry (1736-1799):

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

    1. The Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington, ratified unanimously by the Senate and signed by Adams is clear and unmistakable.

      …the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

      The (un)Holy Inquisition was still committing moral atrocities at our founding, and up to roughly our Civil War., ,

      Our entire moral concept of violence in self defense comes from Muhammad. And the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. Christ said the exact opposite (“…turn the other cheek… ” )

      1. Our entire moral concept of violence in self defense comes from Muhammad. And the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. Christ said the exact opposite (“…turn the other cheek… ” )

        Luke 22:36-38

  9. One can argue until one is blue in the face about correlation not equally causation but those on the Left, from the demagogues (out of strategery) down to the facebook activist (out of gullibility) will put the cart before the horse every time if they can set it to spooky music and get the cattle frightened. The Right is not completely guiltless in this either but the Left has taken it to level of secular faith and rite of passage.

    1. How do we “know” that all men are mortal? Peter dies, Paul dies, Mary dies… no exceptions ever. The principle of induction informs us that whatever is true for any person picked at random is true for all men, and correlation yields something even more reliable than causation… it yields fact. Yet superstition tells us that all men aren’t mortal because tha Bauble sez Jesus resurrected Lazarus, then self, therefore nobody can know anything and there are no standards. Q.E.D. That the dilemma has horns is, by superstitious reasoning, reason enough to conjure up a Satan to wear them.

  10. I just wanted to thank Brian for the “When LSD was Mainstream2 insert. It was 1963 when an editorial (!) in an AMA publication unleashed the hysteria attacks that crippled research on what was probably the least harmful and most useful product out there. I am still reading the Xtians article.

  11. Just face it, leftists are fucking morons or liars, moronic behavior can be excused but its still moronic but lying is a different matter.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.