If I’m not a master, then I’m a slave

A surefire way to be granted sainthood in the early church was to be martyred for the faith. This usually entailed being killed by lions, or being crucified, or otherwise losing one’s life in defiant service and profession of their faith.

A lot of modern Christians in America seem to be angling for sainthood, too, ginning up a massive anti-Christian conspiracy that is, even as we speak, seeking to deprive them of right, liberty, perhaps even their lives.  Take, for example, Ken Hutcherson, former NFL linebacker and present Baptist preacher, who writes in the WorldNetDaily:

I did not become a Christian so I would have to fight for my constitutional freedoms all over again.

Though Jesus makes it clear that following him may be very unpopular.  And history teaches that fighting for freedom is a continuous part of the human condition.

Growing up in Alabama being black, knowing how that felt and the way I was treated in an all-white world of power and control, I had to fight for equal rights under the Constitution. How ironic now as a Christian to have those same thoughts and feelings again and to have to try and wrestle control of my constitutional rights from the secular community.

At which  point, Hutcherson begins his litany of modern woes, which seem to be summed up as “Majority Christians are not allowed to treat this as a Christian country, therefore our constitutional rights are being trampled.”

If I suggested that Whites in Alabama made much the same argument over Yankee lawmakers trampling all over their “constitutional rights” to discriminate in housing, schooling, employment and public services, would that make me an evil secularist?  Probably, because Hutcherson then turns around and calls Christians …

Many reading this may not understand where I came up with this concept of calling Christians “the new Negro.”

Right!  Back of the bus! Separate drinking fountains!  No miscegenation! We don’t allow your kind in here!  All of these are clearly the Christian experience in modern America.

The reason is because there are undeniable similarities.

Wait, let me offer up some denial …

Jim Crow laws were passed to keep me from having my constitutional rights and my rights under the Declaration of Independence of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even though the Constitution gave me those freedoms, man was smart enough to be able to keep me from living those freedoms by saying I was “separate but equal.”

Today, my constitutional right of freedom of religion is being eroded again by laws such as the Hate Crimes Bill and repeated attacks by the politically correct crowd. Threats that came along as a result of an African American wanting to get out from under Jim Crow laws were formidable and scary and designed to keep African Americans quiet. The same thing is happening to Christians today.

One major difference, of course, is that Jim Crow laws were passed to retain power by the Whites; in the case of the New Christian Martyrs, they are bemoaning the loss of their uncontested majoritarian control.

Second, nobody is suggesting that Christians can be discriminated against in housing, schooling, employment, or public accommodation, except to the extent that they, in turn, discriminate against others.  That doesn’t sound like Jim Crow to me.

Third, Jim Crow had the backing of historic violence, the Klan, the lynch mob, the unfriendly county sheriff behind it.  I don’t believe I’ve seen a wave of Christians being assaulted, killed, or thrown in prison by “the politically correct crowd.”

Aside from all that …

Another way …

Wait … you’re taking the preceding blind assertions as “given”?

… secular society is trying to control Christians is by the fallacy of the separation of church and state. That establishment clause was intended to protect the church from the state, not to keep the church from participating in the state. Christians’ ignorance of the meaning of the establishment clause has allowed us to be controlled just like the African Americans were in the 1950s and ’60s.

Ooooh … we’re being controlled.  Through ignorance.

Hutcherson’s understanding of the establishment clause is seriously flawed.  Yes, it was intended to protect the church (rather, particular denomination of the church) from the state by having the state not become an extension of the church.  It was a mutual neutrality pact between the Episcopalians and the Methodists and the Congregationalists and the Quakers and those new-fangled Baptists  to make sure that none of them would wield the power of the state over the others (as had happened in the individual colonies, and Europe before that, with tragic ends) by making sure that none of them had power in the state.

(Yeah, there were also some Jews, Roman Catholics, and Atheists / Deists around, but nobody was worried about them taking over.  Except maybe the Papists.  But everyone agreed that they should be included in the same set of freedoms.)

Many may question why I’m writing this article because they can’t see the fight in our society and world concerning the overt attack on Judeo-Christian values.

Note to Pastor Hutcherson: an attack on values is not the same as discrimination, Jim Crow, or an attack on “constitutional rights.”  It’s an argument over values.  And the results of disagreements over values may have an actual social result — name-calling and hurt feelings and broken relationships.  But those are things that can be legislated for or against.  If I espouse values that you find theologically dubious or morally questionable, you’re not obliged to invite me to dinner.  You may even say that, hey, you disagree with me.  That’s the risk I take, and the freedom both you and I enjoy.

If you don’t believe one could be attacked for their stand on Judeo-Christian beliefs alone, take the case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Look at her refusal to compromise her Christian values. She has been vilified, demonized and lost her title simply because of her constitutional right to freedom of religion.

I applaud Ms Prejean for sticking by her statements, as much as I disagree with them.  If people want to “vilify” or “demonize” her, that’s little different from folks who vilify or demonize atheists or Muslims or Mormons or Catholics or Jews or gays.

We’ll leave aside Hutcherson’s appropriation of Judeo-Christian beliefs to what he particularly holds.  Ms Prejean’s beliefs about gay marriage is not the same as mine, and I believe mine is grounded in Christian values and beliefs.  Pastor Hutcherson would likely disagree with me; does that mean he’s dissing my religious liberties?

But note that Ms Prejean did not lose her title “simply because of her constitutional right to freedom of religion” (or, I suppose, her exercise thereof).  She was fired for breach of contract; the suit she filed and the counter-suit filed against her, were all settled out of court.

What is so encouraging is that she will not compromise; she will not give up her values and would rather please God than take what the world has to offer her.

Like an opportunity to star in more sex tapes?

Sarah Palin is another example.

The politically correct crowd has a very difficult time dealing with Sarah because of who she is. Mrs. Palin is a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage, pro-hunting, white, conservative, Christian male who happened to have been born a woman! The politically correct crowd knows exactly what to do with a white male with those attributes, but a woman?

She is the perfect picture of the politically correct woman – strong, beautiful, able to both buy and fry the bacon, take care of the family, run an entire state and still take care of her baby. But because of who she is, and because she does not subscribe to politically correct thinking, she has been attacked for no other reason than her Judeo-Christian values, just as African Americans were attacked for no other reason than their skin color.

Well, two things here.

Really, the only basis for attacking Ms Palin is her “Judeo-Christian values”?  Without even the very large question of whether her values are actually Judeo-Christian, or represent that mainstream of American (or historic) Judeo-Christian thought, it seems to me that criticisms of Ms Palin have a plenitude of sources and reasons: her proud ignorance comes to mind, the ethics questions raised during her administration, her history of ducking tasks that are too strenuous or troubling …

Second, it’s perfectly legitimate to disagree with Ms Palin based on her values.  Her values, and her interpretation of Judeo-Christian values, are not universal.  Not everyone is going to agree with her.  Nobody I’m aware of has criticized her for having or voicing her religious opinions — except insofar as they represent an imposition of her religious values on others who do not share her particular doctrines or religious values.  I think Pastor Hutcherson would agree that it would be legitimate for him to question or even “attack” a candidate for holding religious values that he disagrees with and that he thinks would inform and influence their actions while in office.

Is Hutcherson of the opinion that this sort of criticism is illegitimate or somehow “wrong” only if it’s directed toward the particular Judeo-Christian values he espouses?

(Oh … and “beautiful”?  That’s a requirement for the “politically correct” crowd?)

If you still don’t think Christians are being attacked for our beliefs, consider Pastor Ake Green in Sweden and Pastor Stephen Boisson in Canada and many other men of God around the world who have been jailed and had their non-profit status threatened because they dare to call homosexuality a sin.

First off, we’re talking about the United States, I thought.  Certainly there are places in the world where Christians are under legal and dangerous social restrictions (e.g., Saudi Arabia).

Secondly, people have been “attacked” for their beliefs, again, forever.  Consider the attacks made against the Congressman who was sworn in on the Koran, rather than the Bible.  Consider the recent case of an atheist state representative who won election but is now is facing a challenge because his state constitution requires belief in God to serve.  Would you also stand up for the attacks on these individuals? How about now-unenforced or stricken down (by the “politically correct” liberal crowd, I’ll note) laws against blasphemy?

Third, Rev. Boissoin (you might want to check the spelling of your examples, Pastor) has been vindicated by a Canadian higher court based on freedom of expression.

But that raises an interesting question: there is a distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  Boissoin was free to believe as he would.  His now-dismissed attacks were for hate speech, and was vindicated based on his freedom of expression.  Does freedom of religion, in Hutcherson’s world, trump all other freedoms or laws?  Is he talking just about his own particular brand of Christianity, or what boundaries would he put on that?

The sad commentary is many Christians have backed off our God-given responsibility to tell the truth because secular society has deemed the truth “political.” Marriage is a church issue, pornography is a church issue, homosexuality is a church issue, and divorce is a church issue. The problem is, as soon as the secular elites named them political, the evangelical church – especially the white evangelical church – retreated and held up the cowardly white flag.

First off, now we see that Hutcherson is addressing the “evangelical” Christian church, thus we don’t need to worry about the the “Judeo-Christian values” of non-evangelicals, mainstream Protestants, possibly Catholics — and certainly not anyone belonging to a non-Christian sect or those without religious beliefs.

Everything is potentially political, of course.  And it’s impossible to separate personal moral values from how people act; indeed, moral values (regardless of their origin) aren’t of much use if they don’t inform actions.  And actions include political actions.

The challenge is not “PC Good, Christianity Bad,” but “How do we accommodate a pluralistic society and the inevitable conflict between moral and religious values held by people within the country?”  And, ideally, not make it a zero sum game where Christianity (or the preferred flavor of it) only “wins” by making everyone else “lose.”

(And, of course, this isn’t a “Secular Elites vs Godly Christians” thing, either.  Painting it that way is disingenuous.)

And, um … which evangelical churches have been waving the white flag?  Because they sure seem to be fighting the “Culture Wars” pretty vigorously.

If you don’t think Christians have become the new Negro, just look at Christmas! We are no longer able to celebrate Christmas in schools. Even though as taxpayers, our tax dollars help pay for our broken educational system, we are forced to celebrate winter break and the fabulous “holiday tree!”

So if having the government-paid teachers in government-paid schools not be able to discriminate based on religion by celebrating a single religion’s particular holidays (and in the beliefs of a subset of that religion beside) is making “Christians” into “Negroes” — who does Hutcherson propose become the new Negroes instead?  Buddhists? Hindus? Atheists? Whose tax dollars don’t get to be represented?  How about Christians who don’t celebrate Christmas that way?  Or Christians who want additional religious holidays celebrated — say, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception?  Does that make Catholics the new Negroes?

If Hutcherson believes that Christianity requires singing “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!” in school, perhaps he should enroll kids in private parochial schools.

How about the wonderful greeting, “Happy Holidays!”? Department stores are afraid to put up signs with the word “Christmas” on them. Don’t mistakenly think this is anything new. Secular society began taking Christ out of Christmas when they started calling it “Xmas” – and we let it happen.

Um … “Xmas” originated as a written shorthand.  The “X” is  a cross (or, alternately, a Greek chi, for Christ).  If you pronounce it “Echs-mas” that’s being ungrammatical, not being a fiendish secularist.  Indeed, that font  of all fiendish secularism, the New York Times, forbids it in its style books.

In my wonderful state of Washington just last year, Gov. Christine Gregoire and the state legislators allowed an Atheist Manifesto to be put up right next to the Nativity scene of our Lord Jesus Christ! I have to say straightforward: the state of Washington is the armpit of the United States, and our lovely legislators are supplying the odiferous scent to the armpit.

So, wait — you can only have freedom of religion if others don’t?  Atheists should be the new Negroes, but That’s Okay?  Clearly you don’t want everyone to be able to freely express their religious values, just your team, Pastor. Which is exactly what the First Amendment was deemed necessary.

Because 2008 was such a disaster, this year there will be no Christmas or religious displays in the Capitol rotunda, period.

Everyone gets a seat at the table, or nobody gets a seat.  Unless you want to create new Negroes, of course.  Which it sounds like it’s okay with Hutcherson, as long as he isn’t one of them.  Which seems to prove the truism that the harshest oppressors are the formerly oppressed.

Oh, except they will put up a huge holiday tree.

Can anybody tell me where common sense is? Everyone in the world knows it’s a Christmas tree. This nonsense is all in the name of tolerance toward whom? It’s certainly not toward those of us who hold strong Judeo-Christian values. As Christians, it’s an attack on what we hold dear.

So a pagan symbol adopted by early Christians is suddenly a holy symbol  for all Christians?  Give me a break.

I’ll be honest, I find the neologism “holiday tree” to be goofy (which is different from finding it morally offensive).  But I suspect that Hutcherson would find that attitude, in turn, to be be even worse, as a secularization of Christmas.

But just like the Negroes, Christians should understand they are not equal under the Constitution’s right to freedom of religion.

Aside from having your feelings hurt by not having the government do what you want, I’m really not seeing how you are not equal under the  Constitution.

The only difference between Christians and African Americans is that Christians put up with this intolerance while standing behind the false disguise of humility and love. We are obsessed with showing the world our love when our primary job is to tell them the truth. The Bible does not say, “Sensitivity shall set you free.” It says, “The truth shall set you free.” Are we not the truth-tellers?

Sure.  Tell the truth.  No problems there.  Voice your opinions.  That’s your protected right (and not just in freedom of religion, but freedom of speech).  But the government — of the whole people, not just your particular flavor of Christians — isn’t obliged to be (and is properly forbidden from) voicing your opinions for you.

Nor, is anyone obliged to listen to your “truths” or accommodate themselves to your beliefs, any more than you are obliged to listen to the local Imam’s “truths” and accommodate to his beliefs.  That’s the point that Hutcherson keeps missing in his analogy.African Americans weren’t asking to be superior based on their numbers and traditional domination of society.  They were asking for equality.  Hutcherson wants Christians (his brand of them) to be superior to other belief systems, in terms of governmental recognition, because they are a majority and traditionally have been the “default” religion in the nation.  That isn’t religious liberty; it is religious tyranny.

When are we as believers, like the African Americans that came before us, going to say, enough is enough? No more “separate but equal!” Our battle cry is “We are the salt of the earth, onward Christian soldiers and to God be the glory! For in unity we will stand and we will not be stopped!

“If we don’t win, we lose.  Fight, fight, fight.”  Religious tyranny indeed.