Categories
Bob's Words of Wisdom

Why are Christians Under Fire? What Changed?

This Sunday, I was listening to my pastor’s sermon and thought to myself, why is it that we are dealing daily with attacks on Christianity, and I decided to do some research to find out why this is happening. According to a PEW survey, Church attendance has been down substantially over the last 30 years but you would think that with what is happening in the world today more Christians would be drawn back to the church. Looking back to the 1990’s we find that 90% of Americans identified as Christians whereas today only 2/3’s call themselves Christians as a large number of adults have become religiously unaffiliated. So, we find a substantial number of young adults who were raised in a Christian family have not retained that identity.

It is the Gen X and the Boomers who have been the stalwarts when it comes to religious belief and are currently the biggest supporters of their churches. Eighty percent of Gen X say that they have always believed which is 14% higher than Millennials and Gen Z. Surprisingly it is the Gen X and Millennials where we have seen the largest drop off in religious affiliation. Looking at Millennials, as they became adults, 22% identified as not having a religious affiliation but as they aged in 2018, we found 33% are identifying as not having a religious affiliation. The percentage of Gen Xers who never attend church still appears to be growing and some say this may be the last generation to be raised with traditional American religious values.

Generally speaking, regular participation in a religious community tends to correlate to better health, longer life, being more generous financially, and creating stable families. With the drop in religious affiliation, it is not surprising that we see more alcohol and drug abuse with higher incidences of loneliness, mental illness, and depression. There are those who draw the correlation that nearly 13% of Americans are taking some kind of anti-depressant drug which may be associated with the drop in religious affiliation. These numbers appear to accelerate with age from 7.9% among adults aged 18-39 to 19.0% for those aged 60 and over. This certainly begs the question, is the loss of religious values a prelude to the epidemic of antidepressants that we are currently experiencing today?

I believe we must also ask ourselves how much of an influence the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 had in causing a drop off in religious values and affiliation. Most religions have very strong beliefs about having an abortion except for medical, incest, or rape issues and believe it is a sin and should not be tolerated. Add to that the excessive proliferation of pornography since the advent of the internet causing those who engage in this pastime less likely to be regular church attendees.

Christ Troupis Book
Advertisement

A PEW survey conducted in the summer of 2023 showed a 12% rise since 2007 in those who are not religiously affiliated. “They’re also still leaning young and democratic, with 69% under the age of 50 and 62% of those not religiously affiliated identifying as Democrats or leaning toward the Democratic Party.” Most of those who claim they are unaffiliated with any particular religion do however have a belief in some higher power just not the God taught in the Bible.

I have said in many previous articles that the drop in religious values started when the U.S. Supreme Court declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional on June 25, 1962. This is one of the reasons that I continue to argue that government-sponsored public education must be abolished. I believe it has been the swinging of the education pendulum far to the left that brought about an indoctrination process that has been and is still causing much of the change in religious values today. Our children are no longer being educated but indoctrinated by the same government entities that have been the cause of the decline in religious values in our country. I often talk to friends who are part of the Gen X and Millennial generations who believe an abortion if done early enough is ok. These same people still attend church services regularly and say they believe in God. I find this dichotomy to be a serious problem in today’s culture. To me, this is like saying suicide is ok as long as you have someone else perform the execution.

As I have moved around the country during my career it’s become clear to me that this indoctrination of our children in our public schools was everywhere and over time has eroded our values and in turn the nuclear family. I firmly believe that religion has been the foundation that America’s values were built on but the waves of socialism pounding on that foundation for 248 years have eroded many of those values. In the past 60 years, too many parents have ignored who decides what their children will be taught and who will be teaching them.

Today we hear about “Critical Race Theory”. the new “Woke” philosophy and “Transgenderism” being taught to our children without our knowledge or consent and we wonder why there is so much division in our country. It is the laissez-faire attitude of parents who have permitted this to take place. Schools have become nothing more than daycare centers for parents who never attend school board meetings or voice their concerns about what is being taught to their children. America is the most powerful country on this earth and there are many who would like to conquer us but would not attempt it knowing they would lose. Unfortunately, they found our one weakness. We permitted our government to control and weaponize our education system and our children have become their soldiers that carry their untenable message for change that would destroy this great nation.

I have visited many schools during my life and have seen the deterioration of public education and believe it is at the heart of many of our current problems. But it is not just our public schools that have been indoctrinating our children, it is also our colleges and universities that continue this indoctrination. The crazy thing is we pay exorbitant tuition for our children to learn how to be anarchists and weapons for the progressive left that would destroy our Republic.

In the past two years, we have seen a great awakening of parents as they protest Wokeness and Critical Race Theory curriculums at school board meetings. Many ask the question is it too late for change? I would like to believe that it is never too late and if we turn back to our religious heritage God will give us the strength to fix these problems and put us back on the right track although it will not be an easy road to travel.

We all need to remember the infamous words of President Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

As for Religion: “It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not to strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

“When we Christians behave badly, or fail to behave well, we are making Christianity unbelievable to the outside world.”

C.S. Lewis.

Amazon Big Spring Sale

7 replies on “Why are Christians Under Fire? What Changed?”

Study the 10 elements of communism. All are in effect. All are implemented and enforced by ‘government’. Indoctrination (AKA education) in government schools is the 10th listed element.
Communism is about control over everything. Organized crime uses ‘government’ to accomplish their war against the people. It is war! It is war by deception! It is designed to leave people feeling helpless because they believe their ‘government’ is too big to take on and be able to make any meaningful changes.
In my opinion the people are not righteous enough to recognize ‘government’ as their enemy.
‘Government’ commits extortion on a very large scale, but calls it taxation. This organized crime ring, calling itself ‘government’, robs the people until they are too poor to pay the extortion and then makes the people out to be criminals for failing to pay the extortion.
Few people are truth-seekers to the point that they recognize this evil that calls itself ‘government’.
When understood, this organized crime ring is actually a Satanic religion. The Bible in Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 states that the Synagogue of Satan calls themselves Jews, but they are not. They are liars.
If you understand this, and then take a look at the leadership and their religion, you will begin to understand where the problem lies.

CHRISTENDOM OFFICIALLY CAME UNDER ATTACK by the 1787 cadre of Enlightenment Masonic Theistic Rationalists (aka Constitutional Framers) with Article 6’s “supreme” law, and then fortified with Marbury v. Madison and Reynolds v. United States (arguably the two most biblically consequential Supreme Court decisions of all time:

“…What does this say about the numerous Biblical laws in disagreement with the Constitution? Consider again the following Supreme Court decision:

‘…a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.’ (Marbury v. Madison (1803))11

“If we believe the law of WE THE PEOPLE is supreme, then all law that contravenes the Constitution, including Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments, is null and void. Reynolds v. United States (1879) addressed the Mormon Church’s claim that polygamy was a right afforded them under Amendment 1. Because most Americans find polygamy repugnant, the magnitude of Supreme Court Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision is lost on them [note especially the first and last sentences]:

‘Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?… So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.’12

“Contrary to Matthew 7:21-27 and James 1:22-25, the Supreme Court ruled that a man’s actions can be severed and isolated from his faith and judged illegal according to the Constitution and its supplemental edicts. This precedent paved the way for any Christian action based upon a Biblical conviction – such as preaching against sodomy – to be arbitrarily outlawed in the same fashion. Had the framers established Yahweh’s immutable law and its predetermined morality as the supreme law of the land, polygamy and human sacrifice (and all other issues) would have fallen under its jurisdiction and thereby determined to be either lawful or unlawful….”

For more, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html

While I agree with the example of sacrifice in Reynolds v. United States (1879), it is clear that the Supreme Court failed to understand the higher principles involved and based its ruling on half-baked logic. One cannot equate the act of voluntary marriage with an act of human sacrifice. By such faulty reasoning the government could justify any power over the people it desired.

Individual rights inherently include the right to their expression. It is tautological to claim that we are guaranteed individual rights but their general expression is at the whim of government. Individual rights, by the very fact of their equal possession by all, are self-limiting at the point where they infringe on the rights of others.

It is one thing for government to provide a means for individuals to seek redress of such infringements and another entirely for it to claim the power to generally regulate the expression of individual rights that do not infringe on the rights of others. While cases like the sacrifice of individuals that are voluntarily allowing it or parents who deny their children medical care based on religious beliefs present difficult moral conflicts to society, these cases are far from setting a general precedent for government interdiction of the expression of individual rights as was found by the Reynolds v. United States (1879) decision.

Victimless acts that do not infringe on the rights of others, such as poligamy, are beyond the authority of government despite the objections and sensibilities of the ruling majority (which, to be honest, in the case of poligamy, I am one. But my only right is to apply my objection to it to myself.).

But neither can the morality of society be defined within the context of a specific religion or philosophy such as you do here because this leads directly to the justification of the infringements by government that you are taking exception to. It allows the values of one group to dictate the values of another group. If you believe it is wrong for the values expressed in Reynolds v. United States (1879) to be imposed on Christians, then it is wrong for the values of Christians to be imposed upon others. The values of all groups must be allowed to coexist within the natural self-limitation of non-infringement of individual rights. This is the true meaning of liberty for all.

So while I agree with the objections you make, I disagree with your proposal that the laws of your religion should be imposed on all as the standard of morality despite my general agreement with those laws. It is up to the individual to choose their moral compass – within the limitations of individual rights – and suffer the consequences of that choice.

My understanding is that this is in keeping with God’s decision to allow people to stray from His word thereby ensuring that their seeking of salvation is a true personal and voluntary act of faith. It is only through living within the natural limitations – and freedoms – of individual rights that a peaceful society can emerge where the coexistence of sinners and non-sinners creates an environment that supports a voluntary path to faith. It is only in the presence of sin that a free choice between sinning and not sinning can exist.

If God wanted a sin free society we would have it. Therefore, it is not for us to attempt to create a society free of sin, but to create a society of peaceful coexistence that supports the process of redemption put into place by God. Our promoting God’s word promotes His desired end. Our attempting to impose His word on others opposes His desired means of our voluntarily choosing His path.

We are inherently claiming the right to do everything we do from walking down the sidewalk to speaking our mind. God is the source of those rights. Since God allows us to stray in order to make our faith a voluntary act, He necessarily grants immoral rights. Without His granting us the right to sin, we could not sin.

From this, it becomes clear that individual rights are God’s path to His law through a process that seeks to constrain sin to peaceful coexistence and a general morality, while still allowing the acceptance of the absolute morality of God’s law to be a free choice. Within this process there is no place for government to dictate morality through the regulation of the expression of God-given individual rights.

Bob Neugebauer: “neither can the morality of society be defined within the context of a specific religion”

It’s IMPOSSIBLE to divorce a society’s morality from a specific religion!

There are no vacuums when it comes to legislated morality or what’s, more often than not, immorality. Consequently, a nation’s foundational ethical standard determines its God.

Thus, there is likewise no vacuums when it comes to religious-influenced governments, be it even Secular Humanism in its multifaceted forms, and it usually is.

When one understands that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic (god ruled), serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

Question: Were the governments in the Old Testament under the god Baal (or any other false god named in the Old Testament) theocracies?

Answer: Of course, they were.

Question: Was Baal (or any other god named in the Bible) real or were they merely ancient forms of We the People?

Answer: Merely ancient forms of We the People. See 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

Consequently: “…There is no escaping theocracy [or theonomy]. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

“People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html

Moreover, you have elevated alleged individual rights over the morality of your God and Creator, in the tradition of the 1787 Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists, also constitutional framers and founding fathers.

See blog article “Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity” at https://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/rights-mans-sacrilegious-claim-to-divinity/

Hi Ted: Your comment was addressed to Bob Neugebauer when in fact it was not his comment. You can see how easily we can become confused and jump to conclusions before investigating. Have a good day
Bob N.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gem State Patriot News