This week in the Christian Science Monitor, Michael Spencer used apocalyptic rhetoric to herald the end-times for Western Evangelicalism. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html] Speaking from the inside, he takes an interesting angle on the decline of Evangelical participation and influence he predicts will characterize the immediate future. Rather than the forces of Satan buffeting the righteous cause, Spencer says, the Evangelicals themselves will be hoisted by their own petard, paying for the alliances and strategies they made in the past thirty years. Foremost among the "traps" that Evangelicalism fell into is their association "with the culture war and with political conservatism," a rising tide in the Reagan era but now susceptible to charges of intolerance and superannuation. Spencer writes that in as soon as the next ten years, "Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society."
Spencer's bold claims and grim prophecies do not necessarily follow from his evaluations; he would be safer arguing not the end of Evangelicalism, but the end of "Evangelicalism as we know it." It was Evangelicalism's protean nature that allowed it to latch onto the moral values train in the seventies, and the defining beliefs which characterize Evangelicalism (high view of Scripture, emphases on personal conversion and evangelism) could also be at the center of an identity that finds a better home in a progressive public sphere. If Evangelicalism can exist before the Religious Right, it can exist after the Religious Right. Rather than dooming Evangelicalism to a future of irrelevance, Spencer ought to foresee an Evangelicalism separated from the culture war ideology. Though religiously characterized by dogmatism, the political face of Evangelicalism of the past century has transitioned from cause to cause in an effort to stay vocal, contentious, and vital. Spencer's identification of the crisis facing Evangelicalism is fascinating and could be dead-on, but he fails to see that Evangelicalism is like a river that may bend and flow in different directions, but will not dry up.
Showing posts with label Religious Right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Right. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Religious Right and their Capitol Crime
In his article, Capitol Crime, Rob Boston criticizes the Religious Right for protesting the new CVC building in Washington D.C. This newly constructed museum, called the Capitol Visitor Center, was created to display the history of Capitol Hill and ease the traffic of tourists who visit every day. It took seven years and cost $621 million to construct this facility and despite these efforts, the Religious Right pursued measures to change parts of the museum because it lacked religious symbols that paid homage to America’s “Christian heritage.” Claiming that the CVC is a “godless pit” and a “shrine to secularism,” they are angered by even the smallest details. These individuals clearly believe that the U.S. serves a divine purpose and they claim that by restricting the implementation of some of our nation’s Christian traditions, we are denying this country’s true Christian history. Boston states that this was the “latest episode in a long running campaign to convince people that America was founded to be an officially Christian nation.” To uphold their views, the Right even stated that George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with them, which we all know is incorrect—especially concerning James Madison, one of the strictest separationists of the Founding generation.
But are the claims of the Religious Right true? Are they right in claiming that the CVC ignores all of our country’s Christian traditions? Staffers from Americans United (a separationist organization) say it ain’t so. They noted that despite all of the Religious Right’s complaints, there are indeed symbols of Christianity inside the museum. For example, there is a display that clearly reads “In God We Trust” on a video screen, an exhibit that discusses congressional chaplains, and even a large King James Bible on display which was given to congressional stenographers during the 1930s. If these aren’t blatant symbols of Christianity, I don’t know what is.
In my opinion, the Religious Right’s argument just doesn’t hold water. As a group, they seem to disregard the first amendment altogether—forgetting that our founding fathers wrote the first amendment with the intention of preventing the government from “establishing or promoting” a specific religion. The CVC building was not built to promote the Christian religion—it was built to provide an elaborate “civics lesson” as James Billington of the Library of Congress puts it. These exhibits are used to explain the formation of Congress and its role in politics. The last quote of the article sums up the purpose of the CVC facility quite nicely by stating:
“If the Religious Right has its way, the Capitol Visitor Center will lose an important opportunity to educate Americans about our nation’s history and the true origins of our government,” Lynn said. “Congress should ignore the Religious Right and make certain the Center accurately reflects history and is welcoming to all Americans.”
Our nation is not discriminatory. By including more Christian symbolism in a facility dedicated to the secular formation of government, the CVC would become exclusionary and fail to attract visitors of all backgrounds, cultures, and religious beliefs. If the Religious Right want a museum that solely displays Christianity in American politics, they should garner $621 million and build a historical sanctuary of their own design, supported by the Church. They simply cannot push forth changes on a secular facility in a country built on the principle of the separation of church and state.
But are the claims of the Religious Right true? Are they right in claiming that the CVC ignores all of our country’s Christian traditions? Staffers from Americans United (a separationist organization) say it ain’t so. They noted that despite all of the Religious Right’s complaints, there are indeed symbols of Christianity inside the museum. For example, there is a display that clearly reads “In God We Trust” on a video screen, an exhibit that discusses congressional chaplains, and even a large King James Bible on display which was given to congressional stenographers during the 1930s. If these aren’t blatant symbols of Christianity, I don’t know what is.
In my opinion, the Religious Right’s argument just doesn’t hold water. As a group, they seem to disregard the first amendment altogether—forgetting that our founding fathers wrote the first amendment with the intention of preventing the government from “establishing or promoting” a specific religion. The CVC building was not built to promote the Christian religion—it was built to provide an elaborate “civics lesson” as James Billington of the Library of Congress puts it. These exhibits are used to explain the formation of Congress and its role in politics. The last quote of the article sums up the purpose of the CVC facility quite nicely by stating:
“If the Religious Right has its way, the Capitol Visitor Center will lose an important opportunity to educate Americans about our nation’s history and the true origins of our government,” Lynn said. “Congress should ignore the Religious Right and make certain the Center accurately reflects history and is welcoming to all Americans.”
Our nation is not discriminatory. By including more Christian symbolism in a facility dedicated to the secular formation of government, the CVC would become exclusionary and fail to attract visitors of all backgrounds, cultures, and religious beliefs. If the Religious Right want a museum that solely displays Christianity in American politics, they should garner $621 million and build a historical sanctuary of their own design, supported by the Church. They simply cannot push forth changes on a secular facility in a country built on the principle of the separation of church and state.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Cultural Crusaders: A Vanishing Species?
Cultural crusaders fervently denouncing
The 1920s battles over immigration, prohibition and evolution indicate that cultural wars thrive during good times. In his book Hellfire Nation, James Morone explains that while the 1920’s economic boom seemed to indicate that the reformers had indeed improved society, the resulting stock market crash of the 1930s abruptly changed the nation’s focus. In place of the moral crusades, the poverty of the Depression gave rise to the Social Gospel where, according to Morone, “the community shares responsibility for vice and virtue, for wealth and poverty.” By the 1932 election, notes Beinart, a focus on “identity politics…was a luxury
The communal responsibility emphasized in the Social Gospel lasted as
Today as the economy again spirals out of control, Beinart argues that Americans cannot afford to choose a candidate based on their stance on abortion and other “value” issues. Obama’s economic policies, an updated version of the Depression-era Social Gospel, have much more resonance with Americans frightened by an unstable economy than do Sarah Palin’s denunciations of immorality.
Beinart titles his article “Last of the Cultural Warriors.” However, his analysis seems to indicate that the economic situation has merely rendered them dormant for a time. Is Beinart’s analysis of the situation correct? Are we witnessing the complete extinction of the cultural crusader, or not? What would Morone’s opinion be of Beinart’s argument? Can “values voting” be tied so closely to economic ups and downs? Do religious values really only matter when the economy is doing well? Beinart’s assertion that Palin is the “last” cultural crusader seems to be a stretch; however, his theory provides an interesting contribution to our understanding of the intersection between religion and politics.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A New "Religious" strategy?
Last year, the Connecticut legislature debated whether to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for opponents of the bill, the Connecticut Supreme Court made the decision first: same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
According to a NYT article, dissenters of the Court decision have conveyed their concern by invoking biology as the rationale behind the threat that same-sex marriage poses on society. Justice Peter T. Zarella explains in his dissenting opinion:
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
Christians like Patricia and Wesley Galloway also hold this perspective. According to them, using religion to defend their view of marriage complicates matters. Instead, they invoke biology to advocate their views that “it takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”
Although Christians like the Galloways and Justice Zarella cite nature, not religion or morality, as the source of authority to “protect the foundation of society” from same-sex marriage, the strategy of the Religious Right seems to be at the center of their campaign. In order to discuss this further, a brief history of the Religious Right is necessary.
The 1970s saw the rise of the Moral Majority in politics and with it the growth of the Religious Right. The formation of advantageous political alliances with Catholics and the framing of controversial issues in terms that would appeal to a broad cross-section of potential voters made the Religious Right influential and effective. Religious conservatives like Jerry Falwell were quick to “transform biblical issues into ‘pro-moral’ or ‘pro-family’ issues” (Dowland, 34). By extension, threats were conceptualized as anti-moral and anti-family issues. For instance, homosexuality was seen as a “threat to families” and a “sign of America’s downfall”(Dowland, 32). By de-emphasizing Christian rationale and by focusing on the family, the Religious Right was politically successful because they appealed to a broader audience beyond religious conservatives.
In the above-mentioned New York Times article, a subset of conservatives and the religious is using “family values” rhetoric but this time under the banner of nature. These conservatives still argue that they are trying to “protect the foundation of society,” but now they are vocalizing a secular source of authority. Previously, when confronting a diverse audience, religious conservatives were relatively silent about the Bible’s authority on controversial issues. Now, they seem to flaunt the undeniable scientific principles of human reproduction to advocate their views. Moreover, these conservatives are more than happy to explain their reasoning by pointing out sociological studies that support their perspective. This is in direct contrast to the religious conservatives of the 1970s who used misleading logic to promote the idea that homosexuals had a propensity for pedophilia and for child abuse.
By using nature as their source of authority and “family values” as their rhetoric, are these conservatives “piggy-backing” on Religious Right strategy? And if so, would this new strategy renew and broaden their base to include individuals who may not be religious? Or would this strategy “backfire” because of the growing evidence that the quality of parenting is far more important than the gender of the parents?
According to Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, only a “renewed energy” in the fight against gay marriage can help push for constitutional amendments. Could this new strategy be it?
According to a NYT article, dissenters of the Court decision have conveyed their concern by invoking biology as the rationale behind the threat that same-sex marriage poses on society. Justice Peter T. Zarella explains in his dissenting opinion:
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
Christians like Patricia and Wesley Galloway also hold this perspective. According to them, using religion to defend their view of marriage complicates matters. Instead, they invoke biology to advocate their views that “it takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”
Although Christians like the Galloways and Justice Zarella cite nature, not religion or morality, as the source of authority to “protect the foundation of society” from same-sex marriage, the strategy of the Religious Right seems to be at the center of their campaign. In order to discuss this further, a brief history of the Religious Right is necessary.
The 1970s saw the rise of the Moral Majority in politics and with it the growth of the Religious Right. The formation of advantageous political alliances with Catholics and the framing of controversial issues in terms that would appeal to a broad cross-section of potential voters made the Religious Right influential and effective. Religious conservatives like Jerry Falwell were quick to “transform biblical issues into ‘pro-moral’ or ‘pro-family’ issues” (Dowland, 34). By extension, threats were conceptualized as anti-moral and anti-family issues. For instance, homosexuality was seen as a “threat to families” and a “sign of America’s downfall”(Dowland, 32). By de-emphasizing Christian rationale and by focusing on the family, the Religious Right was politically successful because they appealed to a broader audience beyond religious conservatives.
In the above-mentioned New York Times article, a subset of conservatives and the religious is using “family values” rhetoric but this time under the banner of nature. These conservatives still argue that they are trying to “protect the foundation of society,” but now they are vocalizing a secular source of authority. Previously, when confronting a diverse audience, religious conservatives were relatively silent about the Bible’s authority on controversial issues. Now, they seem to flaunt the undeniable scientific principles of human reproduction to advocate their views. Moreover, these conservatives are more than happy to explain their reasoning by pointing out sociological studies that support their perspective. This is in direct contrast to the religious conservatives of the 1970s who used misleading logic to promote the idea that homosexuals had a propensity for pedophilia and for child abuse.
By using nature as their source of authority and “family values” as their rhetoric, are these conservatives “piggy-backing” on Religious Right strategy? And if so, would this new strategy renew and broaden their base to include individuals who may not be religious? Or would this strategy “backfire” because of the growing evidence that the quality of parenting is far more important than the gender of the parents?
According to Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, only a “renewed energy” in the fight against gay marriage can help push for constitutional amendments. Could this new strategy be it?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Switching Sides?
I have often heard the phrase, “God is not a Democrat or a Republican.” Nonetheless, some in the Religious Right might say that God would support one party over the other because He would support their stance on key political issues. It was not always this clear cut though, because in the beginning of the rise of the Religious Right evangelicals originally supported Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. However, when it appeared that he was not as conservative as they had hoped, there was a push for them to vote for conservative Republicans. From 1993 to 1996 the efforts of the rising Religious Right culminated in a political cleansing as the Republicans “surged from minority to majority at every level of government” (James Morone, Hellfire Nation, pg 455). Today, many within the Religious Right still choose the Republican Party as their representatives because of their pro-life and pro-family platform.
The article, “Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play” discusses the recent shift in party lines as some Democratic campaigns include anti-abortion stances. Currently, there are twelve Democrats running for the House who are anti-abortion, the greatest number of anti-abortion candidates the party has seen in recent years. As the article contends, the increase in anti-abortion Democratic candidates threatens the Republican domination over “social issues.” Furthermore, there are tensions within the Democratic Party because their platform supports abortion rights and relies on funding from abortion rights groups. However, one Democrat from Pennsylvania responded to criticism by saying she “believe[s] they have a narrow view of what a Democrat is.”
It is clear that America’s polarized two party system promotes narrow views of Republicans and Democrats, and it is even more interesting how religious issues fall into that polarization. Even though it appears that members of the Religious Right only care about “social issues,” this article highlights an understanding that religious people care about a wide spectrum of political issues. Some are willing to vote for a candidate based on both their religious views and their economic views. This willingness to switch political parties shows that religious issues are not the only ones of concern.
On the other hand, is it a problem that people are so willing to vote for someone solely based on their stance on “social” or religious issues even if they disagree with their economic views? If this is the case, it seems better for the Democratic platform to loosen strict adherence to the abortion rights campaign so that the conservative base is more willing to vote for Democratic policies. Lastly, what does it mean that religious issues are an area of compromise? I believe that it shows religion still matters to many voters, and some within the Democratic Party are shifting their stances so that they can reach a conservative constituency. In contrast, others might say economic issues are becoming more of a priority for religious voters, as moral issues move to the back burner.
The article, “Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play” discusses the recent shift in party lines as some Democratic campaigns include anti-abortion stances. Currently, there are twelve Democrats running for the House who are anti-abortion, the greatest number of anti-abortion candidates the party has seen in recent years. As the article contends, the increase in anti-abortion Democratic candidates threatens the Republican domination over “social issues.” Furthermore, there are tensions within the Democratic Party because their platform supports abortion rights and relies on funding from abortion rights groups. However, one Democrat from Pennsylvania responded to criticism by saying she “believe[s] they have a narrow view of what a Democrat is.”
It is clear that America’s polarized two party system promotes narrow views of Republicans and Democrats, and it is even more interesting how religious issues fall into that polarization. Even though it appears that members of the Religious Right only care about “social issues,” this article highlights an understanding that religious people care about a wide spectrum of political issues. Some are willing to vote for a candidate based on both their religious views and their economic views. This willingness to switch political parties shows that religious issues are not the only ones of concern.
On the other hand, is it a problem that people are so willing to vote for someone solely based on their stance on “social” or religious issues even if they disagree with their economic views? If this is the case, it seems better for the Democratic platform to loosen strict adherence to the abortion rights campaign so that the conservative base is more willing to vote for Democratic policies. Lastly, what does it mean that religious issues are an area of compromise? I believe that it shows religion still matters to many voters, and some within the Democratic Party are shifting their stances so that they can reach a conservative constituency. In contrast, others might say economic issues are becoming more of a priority for religious voters, as moral issues move to the back burner.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Marriage for Logistical Purposes
The controversy over the legalization of gay marriage is not new in this country, but has been receiving a lot of press lately because of California’s Proposition 8, which will ban gay marriage in the state if passed on November 4th. Gay marriage is currently legal based on a California Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. The religious right and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority have been fighting against gay marriage for decades and primarily use the Bible to support their campaign. Some Christians view homosexuality and homosexual relationships as sins, and these people believe that if gay marriage is legalized, this country will fall into a state of moral decline. The desire to maintain the sanctity of marriage and promote “family values” also motivates the fight against gay marriage. These ideas cropped up in the 1970s and continue to influence the culture today. While these views can be extreme, many Americans hold beliefs similar to these, which is why gay marriage is currently legal in only a few states.
Rick Jacobs highlights a couple of very important but often-neglected areas of the debate in his article “Do Mormons deserve equal protection under the law?” He describes his lifelong struggles with his sexual orientation in the context of the Jewish religion and the final acceptance that “some people’s religions tell me I am not welcome. It’s okay. That’s their choice.”
Jacobs desire to keep gay marriage legal in California comes not from a religious standpoint, but a legal one. He explicitly states, “If I do (get married), it’ll be for business reasons.” He does not want to get married in any of the churches that oppose gay marriage; he just wants his partnership to have the same protection under the law as a heterosexual couple. Because of complications like property ownership and health care, marriage is not simply a religious institution; the state has to get involved as well. I doubt this debate would exist if marriage was contained to just one entity – church or state. Unfortunately, that is not currently an option.
This leaves us with huge unresolved questions. What happens when religious rights also have legal implications? How can we more fully separate church and state, specifically in terms of gay marriage, while keeping all parties involved relatively satisfied? Jacobs is arguing that his rights be protected under the law just like the rights of religious groups are protected under the first amendment. Throughout history, the government has tended to side with the most vocal majority. November 4th will be an important day to let Californians decide and to see where a least a section of America stands on this issue.
Rick Jacobs highlights a couple of very important but often-neglected areas of the debate in his article “Do Mormons deserve equal protection under the law?” He describes his lifelong struggles with his sexual orientation in the context of the Jewish religion and the final acceptance that “some people’s religions tell me I am not welcome. It’s okay. That’s their choice.”
Jacobs desire to keep gay marriage legal in California comes not from a religious standpoint, but a legal one. He explicitly states, “If I do (get married), it’ll be for business reasons.” He does not want to get married in any of the churches that oppose gay marriage; he just wants his partnership to have the same protection under the law as a heterosexual couple. Because of complications like property ownership and health care, marriage is not simply a religious institution; the state has to get involved as well. I doubt this debate would exist if marriage was contained to just one entity – church or state. Unfortunately, that is not currently an option.
This leaves us with huge unresolved questions. What happens when religious rights also have legal implications? How can we more fully separate church and state, specifically in terms of gay marriage, while keeping all parties involved relatively satisfied? Jacobs is arguing that his rights be protected under the law just like the rights of religious groups are protected under the first amendment. Throughout history, the government has tended to side with the most vocal majority. November 4th will be an important day to let Californians decide and to see where a least a section of America stands on this issue.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Politics in Sheep's Clothing
In an important election year, pastors from particular churches are openingly endorsing and opposing candidates based on candidates’ positions on policies ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage. Because some churches and charities are tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c) (3), they are forbidden by law to intervene in political campaigns. The Religious Right is not taking this restriction lightly. According to Reverend Steve Riggle, “The government should not be telling the Church what it should or should not be saying”. As a direct response to the government’s intrusion, the Alliance Defense Fund has started a campaign urging pastors to discuss potential candidates for public office at the pulpit in hopes of sparking a test case that will once again catapult the issue of “separation of church and state” to the federal appeals court, which has previously (in 2000) unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the tax law.
Are the churches being defiant of justified legal establishments or is the government side-stepping the right of the Religious Right towards religious freedom? This is a compounded issue that needs to be tweezed out into its separate components. At face value, Rev. Riggle’s statement is true. After all our Founding Fathers were adamant in protecting religious liberty as “a right as natural and as significant as those of thought and expression” (Meacham, 84). However, Rev. Riggle overlooks at least one condition that makes this struggle between church and state unique: the church in which these pastors are preaching are tax-exempt.
Tax-exemption is a financial status that benefits organizations that perform charitable, religious, or educational functions. Through the tax-exempt status, the church—in this case—enters into an agreement with the understanding that it will not attempt to influence legislation. In this pact, the religious institution becomes neutral in its own political agenda. If the pact is broken, financial support from the American people inadvertently advocates the opinions of that institution which may not be the conviction of the majority. In the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson remarks that the use of public funding (or the exempt of taxes, in this case) to advocate the belief of a particular group is oppressive: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Like Jefferson, it appears that the drafters of the Internal Revenue Code were also sensitive to benefiting a particular group without reservation.
Through political preaching, the pastors in these controversial churches are no longer promulgating religious beliefs but rather employing “religion as an engine of civil policy” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments). If pastors like Rev. Riggle propose that political preaching is an expression of religious freedom, the Founding Fathers would probably turn in their graves at the sound of such “unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments).
With the appeals court holding fast to the basic principles set forth by Jefferson and Madison regarding the role of religion in government, much has not changed in the idea that religion and government are better off apart whenever possible; however, some vociferous religious proponents have become increasingly bold and more political in their attempts to integrate religion into government than in the past. Fortunately, they are met by an equal secularist force that quickly identifies when preaching becomes a political agenda in sheep’s clothing.
To see the original article, visit Pulpit Perfidy.
Are the churches being defiant of justified legal establishments or is the government side-stepping the right of the Religious Right towards religious freedom? This is a compounded issue that needs to be tweezed out into its separate components. At face value, Rev. Riggle’s statement is true. After all our Founding Fathers were adamant in protecting religious liberty as “a right as natural and as significant as those of thought and expression” (Meacham, 84). However, Rev. Riggle overlooks at least one condition that makes this struggle between church and state unique: the church in which these pastors are preaching are tax-exempt.
Tax-exemption is a financial status that benefits organizations that perform charitable, religious, or educational functions. Through the tax-exempt status, the church—in this case—enters into an agreement with the understanding that it will not attempt to influence legislation. In this pact, the religious institution becomes neutral in its own political agenda. If the pact is broken, financial support from the American people inadvertently advocates the opinions of that institution which may not be the conviction of the majority. In the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson remarks that the use of public funding (or the exempt of taxes, in this case) to advocate the belief of a particular group is oppressive: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Like Jefferson, it appears that the drafters of the Internal Revenue Code were also sensitive to benefiting a particular group without reservation.
Through political preaching, the pastors in these controversial churches are no longer promulgating religious beliefs but rather employing “religion as an engine of civil policy” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments). If pastors like Rev. Riggle propose that political preaching is an expression of religious freedom, the Founding Fathers would probably turn in their graves at the sound of such “unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments).
With the appeals court holding fast to the basic principles set forth by Jefferson and Madison regarding the role of religion in government, much has not changed in the idea that religion and government are better off apart whenever possible; however, some vociferous religious proponents have become increasingly bold and more political in their attempts to integrate religion into government than in the past. Fortunately, they are met by an equal secularist force that quickly identifies when preaching becomes a political agenda in sheep’s clothing.
To see the original article, visit Pulpit Perfidy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
