Libs Fear Christian Nationalism; They SHOULD Fear Democracy-destroying Atheism

By Selwyn Duke

During a recent Senate nomination hearing, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) claimed that our rights do not come from God — but from government. He further asserted that believing in Creator-bestowed rights, as our Founders did, places you in league with Iran’s tyrannical mullahs.

Perhaps just as outrageous, though, is that too many liberals aren’t disturbed by Kaine’s comments. Instead, they get much more upset about a different kind of expression, a good example of which was provided by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in 2023.

“I believe that Scripture, the Bible, is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority,” he stated, “for this specific moment and this time.”

It’s an understatement saying this didn’t sit well with certain liberals. In fact, “the reaction from some quarters was hyperbolic,” writes author and theologian Daniel Darling on Sunday. He then elaborates:

Historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez told Politico that Johnson’s a “right-wing, white evangelical Christian nationalist,” and that “conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government.” Robert P. Jones of PRRI [the Public Religion Research Institute] called him “the embodiment of white Christian nationalism in a tailored suit.”

“This isn’t new,” Darling, director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, continues. “President George W. Bush was pilloried for saying his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. President Ronald Reagan drew similar criticism for his expressions of faith. In each case, acknowledging that faith shapes one’s public service was treated as proof of theocratic ambition.”

The Holy Ghost in the Machine

Darling then says that many claim to fear for our “democracy.” “The headlines are full of dire warnings,” he writes — “about polarization, authoritarian temptations and the unraveling of civic trust.” It is Christianity, too, especially in its orthodox (as opposed to “liberal”) form, that is often fancied a “democracy” destroyer.

Yet this fear, aside from often being feigned, is ahistorical. In fact, America’s Founders, and virtually everyone until not too long ago, would’ve been shocked by it. For it was recognized from our nation’s very inception that Christianity provided the substrate in which representative government could flourish.

Providing examples of this recognition, Darling writes:

John Adams declared that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.” George Washington called religion and morality “indispensable supports” to political prosperity.

Thomas Jefferson warned: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction … that these liberties are … the gift of God? … Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Darling emphasizes, too, that Jefferson was perhaps the least pious Founder. Yet even he considered faith a prerequisite for the “American experiment’s” success.

Darling then adds that “Catholic thinker George Weigel has observed, ‘Democracy is not a machine that can run by itself.’ It needs the fuel of virtue and the moral vision that faith communities have long provided.”

Virtual Unanimity

There are more examples, too. Just ask yourself, for instance, who said the following:

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.

So who authored these lines? Another Catholic thinker? A theologian? Late evangelist Billy Graham?

Actually, it was Democratic President Harry S. Truman.

“Give ’Em Hell Harry” wasn’t alone, either. In 1935, fellow Democrat, New Deal author, and liberal icon President Franklin Roosevelt said in a statement:

We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic.

(Note: FDR didn’t call us a “democracy” there.)

My, my, I bet you didn’t know that Truman and Roosevelt were “Christian nationalists,” huh?

Risible or Reasonable?

When analyzing the above claims, note that it was in Christendom that representative government truly came to flower. In fact, at the very time the West was embracing such government (late 17th, early 18th centuries), it was still pious enough to be Christianizing foreign lands. Coincidence?

What’s more, the West later also spread representative government to many of them (e.g., Japan). Other civilizations didn’t do this — Christendom did.

A mere accident of history?

Hardly. Just as every civilization has governmental laws, it also, unavoidably, will have social/moral laws. As Darling writes:

The late theologian Richard John Neuhaus put it plainly: “The truly naked public square is at best a transitional phenomenon. It is a vacuum waiting to be filled.”

For sure. There can’t be a value-neutral nation any more than there can be a value-neutral family or individual. People are beings who believe things. That is their nature.

No Equality in Beliefs

And what things people believe really does matter. As to this, there’s a reason Christianity is that representative-government-supporting substrate. As Darling writes, pointing out that a prerequisite for our Republic’s success is self-governing citizens:

Christianity has historically nurtured such citizens by teaching that humans are made in God’s image, endowed with inherent dignity and accountable to a higher moral law. It often tempers lust for power by reminding leaders and voters alike that their authority is not ultimate.

The “God’s image” point is significant here, and this significance is best illustrated by contrasting this belief with atheism’s conception of humanity. One side views man as a divine being, Creator-crafted and soul-infused. The other fancies man a cosmic-accident-disgorged collection of chemicals and water — an organic robot.

Now, which worldview will most likely engender respect for human life?

As to this, is it any surprise atheistic communists squelched freedom and murdered 100 million innocents during the 20th century?

A Virtuous Nation

Moreover, it’s Christianity that defined the full complement of virtues; e.g., not just Courage, but also Charity and Kindness. The faith also provides a rationale for their being not just “social constructs,” mere flavors of the day. To wit: They’re divinely authored.

Regarding these virtues’ fruits, Darling points out that the abolitionist movement was animated by scriptural ideals. He also mentions Christian charity’s unequaled magnitude. (As an example, know that the Catholic Church is the world’s largest private provider of aid to the poor. It’s also second, overall, to only the U.S. government.)

For these reasons and many others, Darling warns that we “should resist the false choice between being good Christians and good citizens.” Yet is this merely a false choice — or an inversion of reality? The father of our nation, George Washington, surely had his answer. Just consider what he once wrote in a Continental Army general order:

To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

Now, if this was good advice for the men who fought to establish our nation, is it not also good advice today for those fighting to preserve it?

                    This article was originally published at The New American.