Friends,
my friend Larry Johnson is an excellent essayist and he wrote the essay below.
Topical
moments in media and culture are often of great debate and concern but are
largely forgotten within a short time. Such moments command headlines and sound
bites repeatedly play during the 24-hour news cycle. Yet, it is by the
accumulation of such topical moments we give a face and direction to the
culture in which we live. However,
there are singular occurrences, often unrecognized or thought of as only a
momentary concern, which starkly define the reasons for “why we fight” in the
raging culture wars. One such singular occurrence happened within the last
couple of weeks.
George Washington once said, “When we assumed the soldier, we did
not lay aside the citizen.” But if the Pentagon has its
way, we may see an end to our nation’s historical admiration and respect for
the citizen-soldier as the wedge of state is driven between the two. The Pentagon
has proposed a policy to prosecute military personnel for promoting their
faith. Specifically, the Pentagon stated that, “Religious proselytization is
not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial
punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…” For all military personnel
the end result would be to virtually eliminate all expressions of faith, even
on a one-to-one basis between close friends or merely social acquaintances. And
for all practical purposes the military chaplaincy would cease to function.
It appears that the source of the anti-proselytizing agenda is
former ambassador Joe Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin
Powell, and Michael Weinstein, the head of the private Military Religious
Freedom Foundation. The three men recently met with several generals to discuss
religious issues. Wilkerson equates religious proselytizing to sexual assault,
both of “which are absolutely destructive of the bonds
that keep soldiers together.” So what did the generals
also hear from Mr. Weinstein? Perhaps it was something like what he wrote for
the Huff Post: I founded the civil rights fighting organization the Military Religious
Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear
down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal
entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military. Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of
fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans
by forcing their
weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates
in our nation’s armed forces… If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization,
humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid
theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their
rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and
pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Well!
Mr. Weinstein’s rant does tend to leave one breathless. But, let’s let one of
our nation’s former citizen-soldiers who also knew a little about the
Constitution speak for the opposition. On July 4, 1775, General George Washington issued the
following order from his Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters:
The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance
of those articles of war established for government of the Army which forbid
profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness. And in like manner he requires and
expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in actual duty, a punctual
attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven
upon the means used for our safety and defense.
A year
later and five days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the
Continental Congress authorized the provision of chaplains for every regiment
in the newly constituted army headed by General Washington. On that same day
Washington issued his first general order to his troops:
The General hopes and
trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live,
and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and
Liberties of his country.
In
another general order issued at Valley Forge on May 2, 1778, General Washington
implored his troops:
While we are zealously
performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to
be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character
of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the
more distinguished Character of Christian.
Unlike Wilkerson and Weinstein, Washington knew the real source of
that which forged those bonds that keep soldiers
together. That source was religion and in particular the Christian
religion. However, if the Pentagon’s civilians and military brass have their
way and General Washington was alive
today, he would be court-marshaled for (paraphrasing Weinstein)forcing his weaponized and twisted version of
Christianity upon his helpless subordinates in the Continental Army in sharing
his religious views.
Some will argue that we no longer have
a military of citizen-soldiers but a professional army with no need of religious
influences. Not so. Many are reservists and members of the National Guard. And
those full-time members of the military didn’t leave their faith behind at the
induction centers. More importantly, whether a professional army or
citizen-soldiers, our nation’s Armed Forces without the
Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion will deteriorate into a palace
guard loyal only to their masters and not to the Constitution or the people.
The Pentagon’s anti-proselyting regulation is the culmination of
dozens of anti-Christian regulations and initiates in the military that have
arisen during the Obama administration (See “I’m
so shamed!” CultureWarrior.net
– May 2, 2013). But it is
this Pentagon regulation that is a singular occurrence which lays the ax to the
root of our religious freedom of sharing one’s faith. This marginalization of
religious freedom reaches far beyond the Armed Forces. The agenda of the
Obama administration to fundamentally change America encompasses every segment
of the public square and is the culmination of decades of humanistic
infiltration of American culture.
Those of the humanistic worldview have
risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their
humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed on a nation whose
citizens that still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is
the cause of culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural
vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews.
Christians who ignore or disengage from the battle place religious freedom and
our nation at peril.
 |
| The beginning of the U.S. Constitution |
A constitution will die if it does not
fulfill the purpose for which it was enacted. Not being a living thing, its death takes the form
of being ignored, trivialized, or corrupted. The purpose of any
constitution is to reflect a set of fundamental principles by which to govern
rational and social beings, that is, people. A constitution in a free society
is a blueprint for constructing a government fitted to the people’s temper of
mind, affections, or passions which I shall call the nation’s central cultural
vision or collective worldview. Thus, we have three elements: the people, their central cultural
vision, and their constitutional blueprint.
If a constitution is not functioning as
intended, one of three things has happened or is happening. First, the
constitution as drawn did not reflect the fundamental principles of the people.
Second, the fundamental principles of that people changed over a period of time
and now stand in contradiction to the principles upon which the constitutional
blueprint was originally drawn. Third, the leaders of a society through
craftiness and corruption have undermined the intent of the constitution in a
manner contrary to the central cultural vision of the people.
The power of the American Constitution to provide prescriptive
rules, principles, and ordinances for the American people is waning. Something is amiss, and to determine which
of the above reasons is the source of the decline, we must examine our history.
The
central cultural vision held by the colonists down through the Founding era was
the basis for the set of blueprints for building the American form and practice
of government, our national house so to speak. Those blueprints had been drawn largely from the
Judeo-Christian tradition and its reliance on a transcendent God, His eternal
truths, and His revelation to the Hebrews and first century Christians. To
these central elements were added the prescriptions of history, custom,
convention, and tradition—in essence, our patrimony. After a number of years
certain wings of the house were demolished (e.g., slavery) and rebuilt to
better adhere to those original blueprints.
Most of
the governance of the house in the intervening years since its construction
dealt with routine maintenance, interior decorations, and arrangement of
furniture within. But the house was of sound construction, and apart from
occasional errors in modification which were readily corrected, the structure
served its inhabitants well. The
house was large and had many rooms, and many were welcomed to live therein,
even those that did not like the architecture and the central vision of its
culture—the over-arching banner of the Judeo-Christian worldview.
However, the Founders knew of the
fallen nature of man and foresaw a time when men would attempt to change that
which they had built on timeless truths. In their great wisdom, the
Founders believed they should insure what they had built would not be changed
capriciously by its inhabitants. So they drew the Constitutional blueprint to
limit those changes so the house would continue to function within the
time-tested guidelines, or as Thomas Jefferson said, to “…bind him down with the chains of the
Constitution.”
True to the Founders’ prediction,
several groups believed that the house should not be just maintained or
periodically redecorated but be reconstructed in its entirety. They wished to
tear down the structure and build a new house using a set of old blueprints
based on the tenets of humanism (which the Founders had judged to be
fundamentally flawed and structurally unsound).
For the
humanists, the center of the cultural vision would have to be shifted, and the
old overarching banner of the Judeo-Christian worldview would have to go. Their
demolition efforts began in earnest in the nineteenth century and progressed
rapidly throughout the twentieth century. The structural supports of the old house were identified
as the first to be demolished—belief in a transcendent God, hierarchy, moral
truths, right and wrong, the fallen nature of man, and the sanctity of life to
name just a few.
However,
the chains of the Founders’ Constitution slowed the humanists’ progress. So they took the Founders’ words
and invented new definitions and meanings to attach to those words. Once the
new meanings were defined, taught in our schools, and embedded in our
media-saturated consciousness, the humanists insisted that the old Constitution
was outdated and must be modified and modernized to fit the new progressive
understanding of the world and its problems. The old structure still
stands, but for how long we do not know. Its future depends on its inhabitants.
In spite of humanist assaults, the great majority of the inhabitants still like
the original plans but seem to not know how (or care enough to rise from their
lethargy) to stop the demolition and rebuild the house as it once was.
Our
analysis leads us to conclude that the decline of the American Constitution is primarily due to the third
reason listed above—the leaders of the institutions of American life through
craftiness or corruption over several decades have undermined the
Constitution’s original intent which they now deem to be contrary to the
central cultural vision of the people. But, there is also collateral damage
from the humanist assault. Because of the unrelenting assault on the
biblical worldview for three generations and a lack of truthful teaching in our
schools about our Founding, America is seeing a shift by a growing segment of
its citizens to a humanistic worldview devoid of belief in a transcendent God,
objective truth, and the fallen nature of man. The consequences of such a shift
in the America vision were foreseen by our Founding fathers.
 |
| A great patriot Benjamin Rush |
“The only foundation for…a republic is
to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue
there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican
governments.” [Benjamin Rush – Signor of the Declaration of Independence,
attendee at the Continental Congress, physician and first Surgeon General]
 |
| Charles Carroll |
“Without morals, a republic cannot
subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian
religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for
the duration of free governments.” [Charles Carroll – Signor of the Declaration
of Independence, lawyer, member of the Continental Congress and first U.S.
Senate]
 |
| John Adams |
“We have no government armed in power
capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other.” [John Adams – One of the drafters
and a signor of the Declaration of Independence, 2nd President of the United
States]
We have
only to read the words of the Founders to understand why the power of the
American Constitution to provide prescriptive rules, principles, and ordinances
for the American people is waning. In summary, our Constitution won’t save America if it’s citizens
abandon virtue, morality, and religion. Such abandonment leaves the
Constitution powerless to guide the nation as it enters the turbulent waters of
humanistic moral relativism. And the ultimate consequence is a loss of liberty.
