The New American Religion

This story regarding football and prayer should make Christians and non-Christians alike furious.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter asking Chancellor Roger Brown of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) about what group Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor described as "unlawful university sponsorship of Christian prayer." UTC ended up moving away from prayer and to a moment of silence, bowing to the pressure of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, but was this necessary?

A visit to the Freedom from Religion Foundation website will introduce you to the religion of atheism, with its own monuments and marquees. The website openly promotes the religion of atheism in all its glory.

A religion, by definition, is a system of organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems and worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence. Atheism is, by all accounts, a religion, and the proof is right there on the Freedom of Religion Foundation's own website. Atheism is a systematic organized collection of beliefs that related to an ordered existence. There are churches forming and monuments being built celebrating Atheists, and organizations like the Freedom form Religion Foundation are actively requiting converts to their cause.

If there is to be a true separation of church and state then is not that separation from all forms of organized religion? Or, are the Freedom from Religion Foundation and other groups like them merely discriminating against Christians? Either they have special considerations or atheism has become the new American religion.

The Constitution and Christianity

I just read another article about another school district cleansing all references to Christianity from its schools, and the reason given was to come into alignment with the constitution. This brings forth the following question: what does the constitution actually say about Christianity?

Before answering this question, it will be helpful to break down the constitution and its sections.

The Preamble begins the constitution and is, perhaps, the most famous section. It is one sentence and sets the precedent for future generations. The opening phrase, "we the people" is perhaps the most important and famous phrase in the entire elongated sentence as it establishes the motivation and the purpose of the constitution. This was a country created for the people.

Following the Preamble are the seven original articles of the constitution. These seven articles, intact from their original draft of 1787, prescribe the supreme law of the country and set up the government as it is to be executed. These seven articles establish the three branches of government and their respective powers, and most importantly, they also set up a system of checks and balances to keep each branch from gaining a supreme advantage over the other. To read both the Preamble and the articles click HERE.

Following the articles are the amendments of the constitution. Article five established the means of amending the constitution. The first ten amendments are known as the bill of rights. Amendments, per article five, must first be proposed by a two thirds vote by congress and then approved by a two thirds vote of the states. Interestingly, the states, by that same two thirds vote, can propose an amendment as well. To read the amendments to the constitution, click HERE.

That is a lose description of our constitution which will suffice to answer our original question concerning the constitution and Christianity. Neither the preamble nor the seven articles refer to Christianity; as a matter of fact, religion, itself, is not addressed at all in either section. Religion is first addressed in the first amendment of the constitution which states:

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

Christianity is not specifically addressed by the constitution, but it is also no rejected by it either. Amendment one is used as justification for removing all references remotely Christian from public display in schools and other public venues. Public displays and references to Christianity are attacked and banned in the name of the first amendment, but let me suggest that this action is not only wrong but also unconstitutional. My reason is based on this very amendment and contained completely inside the constitution, unlike those attacking Christianity.

Remember, those that are attacking Christianity are doing so through the first amendment with assistance from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Union in response to their concern about a country-wide religion. Their concern was that this new country, the United States, would follow the path of England and create a state-wide religion, i.e., the Church of England. Jefferson wrote his letter to assure them that there would be no such creation, and in that response, he inserted the phrase, "the separation of church and state," which has been used in conjunction with the first amendment to slowly purge Christianity from all public schools and venues.

I would propose that as long as there is no established law that states that the ten commandments must be on the wall of every school, that prayer must be part of every opening assembly and that Christianity is the national religion... then the ten commandments, bible verses and Christian prayer are all permissible through the first amendment of the constitution. And, here is why I can say that: to propose that those things are illegal is to violate the first amendment of the constitution because it is, in essence, establishing a national religion.

It is establishing a religious standard that all must follow which is, by the very wording of the first amendment, making a law respecting "an establishment of religion."  The conjunction "or" is an important word in this phrase as it links back to the word "law." The first amendment is clear: Congress shall make no law that either establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of one. It is not one or the other but both. Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of religion. It is a brilliant amendment because to establish a religion prohibits the free exercise of other religions, and to prohibit the free exercise of religion is, in essence, establishing a religion.

Some would argue that removing Christianity is just ensuring and establishing religious neutrality, and not establishing a religion at all. I would argue that there is no such thing as religious neutrality, first, and second, it is still prohibiting the free exercise of religion. I would base my arguments on several issues.

First, everyone has a worldview. No one looks at the world through a neutral lens. Even those who claim to believe that there is no God are still viewing the world through their worldview - atheism. By definition, atheism is a religious process. It is a world view and a belief by which one lives, and therefore, it is a religious practice that should not get preferential treatment over other worldviews, as established by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. One can be an atheist, but one can not assert that view over all other views. Removing a view that opposes that view is clearly an assertion in direct violation of the first amendment. It is establishing a religious preference to which all must submit.

Second, when those opposed to Christianity push legislation directly opposed to Christianity and its tenets they are, in essence, in violation of the first amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Establishing a federal law or even a federal mandate prohibiting Christianity is abridging the freedom of Christians in this country, and forcing those Christians to submit to law in violation of their religion. Many will argue that Christianity is not be banned, but instead, some of its tenets are banned in order to ensure that it will not become the established religion of the country. This will not work because when you ban one tenet of Christianity, prayer, for example, in response to another religion, atheism, the banning of that one tenet is asserting the other tenet of that other religion as the religion of the land and, in essence, establishing a national religion. I would posit that atheism is the only religious view in this country protected by legislation and enforced by the federal government. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Whether you are a Christian, an Atheist, a Mormon, a Muslim, Jewish or any other religious affiliation you should be concerned with this attack on Christianity for one simple reason... it opens the door for a future attack on you. If the federal government is permitted to establish a litmus test in order to create a peremptory religious condition then all religions are in danger. The one thing we do know is that history is never static, and change... comes quickly.
 

The End of Christian America?

A while back Newsweek came out with a very interesting article on Christian culture. The article was full of statistics pointing to an apparent solid fact that the Christian influence in our general culture is in decline. The story quote R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and his concern over one sentence out of the whole report.

"But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking."

The historic foundation of religious culture in our country has been cracking for a long time, but the crack is not just limited to our country. When sin came into the world in the garden, the crack began and continues until the Lord returns. There is a shift taking place away from order and structure, but that shift has been taking place since the beginning of time. As I read this article, my sense is that our country is struggling with the same things it has always struggled with, but with one exception... we now know about it. There is so much information available about every topic that we can now know trends and shifts while they are taking place. This article gives us almost too much information. For example,

"According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler's attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans."

I am currently engaged in doctoral studies at the University of Alabama and have also done work at Georgia State University in Atlanta, and I will tell you, if I learned one thing it was this: you can make numbers dance. You can make numbers say exactly what you want them to say, if you choose. Now, I am not saying that this article does that, but there is a risk of that anytime you take a survey and promote it as a representation of the general population. And, this article does take surveys and apply them to the general culture and population.

So, a word of caution, don't always believe what you read. This article contains the following statement, "Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)" But, I will tell you this: even though the statement reflects a tone of absolute... it is not. It is a general statement. God is still on His throne and in control.

I am reading Nehemiah these days and, to be totally honest, it reads a lot like today. And, we all know how that ends! God is still the same yesterday and today. May we glorify Him! Blessings!

From where do atheists come?

New Scientist magazine has an interesting article on atheism. The article is interesting on several fronts.

The tag line at the front of the article implies that the majority of people think atheism, not theism, is odd. Oxford, to the surprise of no one as it is the home to Dawkins, is a leader in producing those who ascribe to atheism. While the Oxford numbers are of no surprise, the other numbers are. Read for yourself...

"And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic" (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did."

The article digs into the Enlightenment notion that the more educated we become the farther away we move from a belief in God. Apparently, statistics do not back that notion, thus the recent trend away from the factual and toward the narrative. The entire article is worth a read based on the paragraph below. Did you ever think you would see that paragraph is a serious science magazine? I did not. Enjoy!

"What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not "get" the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten - and under what conditions?"

Apologetics

As I was listening to a sermon Sunday evening, a few thoughts started to dance around in my head. These thoughts were apologetic in nature, and I am sure were triggered by something in the sermon, maybe the reference to Romans 1:20, which has always been on of my favorite verses.

I am not one who dwells in apologetics on a regular basis as I am just not that bright. I do read in the subject, but as far as the actual work, I leave that to the theologians. I have recently begun to read both Cornelius Van til and Gordan Clark and their views on presuppositional apologetics with great interest. I was thinking of their words as Romans 1:20 settled on my heart when it hit me... the idea of circularity.

This idea of circularity is itself part of an apologetic that states that the argument for Christianity is circular in reason. Most presuppositional apologetic supporters will reject this as a fallacy, but John Frame encourages us to slow a bit in our judgment. He writes,

"That presupposed allegiance rules our thinking, as it rules all other aspects of life. And since Christian presuppositions underlie all of the Christian’s reasoning, then our argument for the truth of Christianity itself must be, in a certain sense, circular. We should try to understand what that “certain sense” is. It is not that we are reduced to saying “Christianity is true because it is true,” or any such nonsense. Rather, the argument is circular in that it appeals to criteria of truth and rationality which are themselves Christian in that they accord with Christian presuppositions. But if that is true, then we are presenting an argument that assumes from the outset that Christianity is true; it assumes, in other words, the conclusion it attempts to prove."

Presuppositional apologetics holds that without a theistic worldview there will be no consistent basis upon which to assume any possibility of autonomous reason. When other worldviews attempt to refute Christianity by an appeal to deductive reason (inductive reasoning is of no help here), they are in fact borrowing from the Christian worldview, hence being inconsistent with their stated presuppositions. The presuppositional apologist can take a given value which is held by the unbeliever and demonstrate to him or her that if his own worldview were true, that belief would be meaningless without the Christian worldview. The assumption is this: unless the Christian worldview is presupposed—whether at a conscious or subconscious level—there is no possibility for proving anything with out it.

The argument for evolution attempts the same jump in science as it must presuppose some things before reaching a conclusion. Generally, all theories begin first with a hypothesis based on some suspected truth that is supposed. Once the supposed truth is proven through diligent honest research then, in that field, all future thought begins, first, with this presupposed proven truth in order to build and discovery more truth to add to the existing truth. Evolution has not been held to the same standards. It has taken a suspected truth and pushed that truth to the presupposed truth status before research has proven anything substantial. There are those who will cry fowl in support of evolution, but watch and listen closely. Their cries in defense of evolution will be loud, boisterous and all fallacies.

But, science was not content to keep this false presupposed truth in a single field, instead, pushing this false presupposed truth, first, into every scientific field and, then, into every other field and subject. Today, we are confused; most of us will not admit it, but we are really not quite sure why this truth that is suppose to be presupposed and a priori feels so wrong and leads to such hopelessness.

Let me apologize at this time for subjecting you to the strange way my mind works... pray for my poor wife as she has to deal with me daily. Anyway, I was thinking these things in this order when it hit me... man will never prove that evolution is true or false in the same way that man will never prove that God exists or does not. And, here is why. When those working in a lab or on a theory discover something... they do so under conditions. In a lab or in theory, there will always be a test tube or theory, variables and a controlled environment. Even if science is able to clone or create something, it will always be in a lab with a test tube or a theory, variables and a controlled environment or in other words... with some sort of intelligent design and a creator!

For me, every scientist is now proof of a Holy God because no matter what they prove, whether it be in a lab or in theory, they are still involved in the process creating theories, variables and controlling the environment.

Regarding evolution and its standard definition, "in biology evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species. Similarities among species suggest that all known specie descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."

From where did the genetic material come? Creator. From where did the common ancestor come? Creator. Every where that I look I find that it is necessary for a Creator to be part of the process as evidenced by scientists and their theories, variables and controlled environments. May God be Glorified!

The Atheist Church

I read an ARTICLE recently that made me chuckle. Atheists, those who claim that God does not exist, are now openly discussing the formation of a church-like body. Quoting the article...

"The quartet of best-selling authors who have emerged to write the gospel of New Atheism—Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkins (the Four Horsemen, as they are now known)—has succeeded in mainstreaming atheism in a nation that is still overwhelmingly religious and, in the process, catalyzed a reexamination of atheistic raison d’être."

I am confused. What gospel is there to write?

More...

" Atheism’s great awakening is in need of a doctrine. “People perceive us as only rejecting things,” says Ken Bronstein, the president of a local group called New York City Atheists. “Everybody wants to know, ‘Okay, you’re an atheist, now what?’ ”

What doctrine? Let's just pretend they are right for one minute just to make a point. What they are proposing here, will it not result in another form of "oppressive religion" in the years to come? Are they not doing exactly what they are accusing so many "religious" people of doing in the past?

And, there is no "what" if there is no God. Why write doctrine when there are no rules, and everyone is free to live as they wish? As a matter of principle, their worldview demands that there be no doctrine in order to live consistently within their beliefs. If they do write and publish doctrine then they are no longer free to criticize any other religious doctrine, if they wish to live inside their worldview consistently. Consistency is the knife that slices to the marrow of worldviews. It is the Christian worldview that can be lived out consistently.

More...

"At this point, the movement can’t even agree on a name. Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, prefers the term anti-theist because he’s entertained the possibility that God exists and finds the prospect frightening, the spiritual equivalent of living in North Korea. Daniel Dennett continues to promote the term bright, which, he has said, is “modeled very deliberately and very consciously on the homosexual adoption of the word gay.” (In the first chapter of God Is Not Great, Hitchens dismisses the term as conceited.) And Sam Harris, brash young scientist that he is, triggered a minor revolt last fall at the Atheist Alliance International Conference in Crystal City, Virginia, when he lashed out against the term atheist, disparaging those who identify with a negation. “It reverberated in atheist circles as a sacrilege,” Harris told me. “But what’s worse is adopting language that was placed on us by religious people. We don’t feel the need to brand ourselves non-astrologers or non-racists.”

I do apologize for my responses here, but it is, again, as scripture states: without God man will become proud and think he is intelligent when he really is just foolish. I know because I have been that fool many times, but each time God reached down and rescued me from myself.

One final thought: if there is no God, and man has evolved, why the militant onslaught against a none being that does not exist? Is that really the highest form of intelligence? Should anyone follow those who continue to attack a none being? Would you listen to a group that organized itself to protest the Lucky Charms leprechaun or the Keebler elves? If you desire to really know the truth, do not listen to men; instead, ask God to reveal Himself to you, and He will change your life beyond what you could have ever imagined! Blessings to all!