There’s a renewed and seemingly coordinated campaign across social media and legacy media outlets. They bemoan their new bogeyman of “Christian Nationalism.” Depending on who you ask, this buzzword and terrifying label means anything. “Christian” coupled with “Nationalist” can mean wanting a modern-day American Reich purged of non-Christians. It can also mean a dystopian fantasy police state ruled by Christians. Others claim it means the ahistorical idea that Christians are wrong for believing American governance should be affiliated with Christianity at all.
I’ve seen every position represented in this ignorant and hysterical caricature, all with a singular goal
The goal is to diminish and erase. They seek to discredit through emotional blackmail and gaslighting. They want to destroy the fundamental truth that America is, by every historical metric, a Christian nation .
America is a Christian nation .
It should be a Christian nation .
We are blessed that it is a Christian nation . The world is a better place because we are a Christian nation .
The “Show Me in the Constitution” Fallacy
Some of the common objections people make go something like this:
- “Show me where it says that in the Constitution.”
- “Separation of church and state.”
- Or the ever-intellectual: “We don’t want our country based off your sky daddy.”
First and foremost, the “show me in the Constitution” argument is a logical fallacy. It is an argument from silence. It’s incoherent because it presupposes that if the founders did not explicitly write “God” or “Christianity” into the Constitution, then Christianity must not have informed anything at all.
We’re expected to believe that our values—particularly our rights—emerged from a vacuum. They were invented by mortal men who just happened, by sheer coincidence, to articulate the same moral framework Christianity had already articulated for centuries.
But let’s back up.
What Is a Fundamental Right?
What is a right? What is a fundamental right?
For something to be fundamental, it is of core or central importance. It is intrinsically necessary to the very being or existence of that which we’re describing.
A right, then, is something to which we are entitled. It requires no prerequisites. No conditions. No permission.
Therefore, a fundamental right is something we are entitled to simply because we exist.
To put it another way: a fundamental right is inherent to our being.
What this means is that nobody—and nothing—can simply decide we no longer have those rights. They are not granted. They are not voted on. They are not up for debate.
They are inherent.
This means that if we are born with these rights, they have a real source. These are rights the founders called “self-evident”. Therefore, they must be evident and valid for some reason.
That reason is God.
Rights Come From God, Not Government
The founders said as much. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
Or, as Joe Biden once eloquently put it:
“All men… and women… are created equal by the… you know… the thing.”
So whether it’s God or the Thing, your rights came from somewhere.
And this wasn’t an incidental flourish of language. James Madison made clear that duty to God precedes any obligation to the state:
“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage. He must render such only as he believes to be acceptable to Him.”
That statement alone destroys the notion that government is the source of rights.
God comes first.
Government comes second.
Here’s the problem: if you divorce God from fundamental rights, where do those rights come from?
The only alternative is man—meaning the government.
And if the government is the source of your rights, then they aren’t rights at all. They’re permissions. Privileges. And permissions can be revoked.
Why?
Because governments are man-made institutions created by the whims of men. And all of human history shows us that cultures and subcultures radically disagree on what constitutes a “right.”
That is true today.
Countries that reject Christianity simply do not have the rights that Christian nations do. Christian nations that become increasingly secular, especially those without a constitution as explicit as America’s, see rapid shifts. Those shifts affect what a “right” even means.
Washington on Religion and Civil Order in a Christian Nation
George Washington warned explicitly that rights and civil order collapse when religion is removed from public life:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
And he went further:
“Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life? What happens if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
The Constitution didn’t need to make the case for God. Neither did the Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of Independence already did—in a single line.
It should be self-evident to anyone willing to think seriously about the nature and origin of rights. That reflection shows it is God, and the Christian tradition, that allows us to recognize them at all.
What “Separation of Church and State” Actually Meant
Now, I won’t spend much time on the second objection—“separation of church and state”—but this needs to be said plainly:
Anyone who throws that phrase at you as a quip, without context, is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
When the founders risked their lives to forge this nation, they acted with clear purpose. They did so in part because the Church of England had become a state-controlled authoritarian weapon. It was no longer a true church representing Christ.
Their concern was not Christianity in government.
Their concern was government controlling religion.
They did not want a federally mandated church—religion enforced “or else”—because enforced religion ceases to be religion at all.
There is a massive difference between a Christian nation whose moral north star is Jesus Christ of Nazareth and a state-mandated religion. A state-mandated religion is enforced by government power.
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration and founder of public education in America, was explicit on this point:
“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion.”
Christianity was not excluded from public life.
It was assumed.
Religious Freedom Does Not Mean Moral Neutrality
Here’s a simple analogy.
Let’s say we’re friends. You’re Muslim. I’m Catholic.
You come into my home. In my home, you must respect my rules and my household. But you are not required to pray to Jesus Christ.
That’s religious freedom.
But that doesn’t change the fact that my home is guided by Christ.
The same principle applies to a nation.
Invoking “separation of church and state” to argue that Christianity must be excluded from governance is simply dishonest. The original intent was to prevent the federal government from establishing or enforcing a religion. It was not meant to excise Christianity from the moral foundation of the nation.
The “Sky Daddy” Argument
Then we get the low-IQ “hurr durr sky daddy” arguments. These are infantile dismissals meant to ridicule belief in God rather than engage it.
Most atheists who use this line have never seriously wrestled with the evidence of God’s existence. They have not considered the philosophical implications of there not being a divine creator.
Instead, we are treated to childish mockery meant to shut down discussion entirely.
It’s essentially the intellectual equivalent of saying:
“You’re too stupid to even engage with.”
But there’s a problem with that tactic.
Actually, two problems.
First—and most obvious to Christians—God exists whether you believe He does or not.
Reality simply does not care about your preferences.
The Founders Themselves Settled the Question
But even setting that aside, let’s meet this argument outside the supernatural.
Let’s meet it in the founding of our country and the writings of the founders themselves.
If the founders were not creating a country grounded in God and Christian belief, you must address the evidence. They also grounded it in rights derived from the nature of being made in God’s image. If you deny that, then you need to deal with John Adams.
Adams did not mince words:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Not somewhat flawed.
Not less effective.
Wholly inadequate.
And Adams wasn’t talking about religion in the abstract. Religions contradict each other.
Christianity was the moral framework assumed by the founding generation.
America’s system of government is suited only for a religious Christian people—and wholly unsuited for any other.
What Happens When a Nation Rejects Its Foundation
Why?
Because the Constitution is ultimately a social contract.
The further our society drifts from Christian values, the more that contract becomes incompatible. It conflicts with the beliefs of the people living under it.
When you secularize a nation, you inevitably dilute shared values. When you reject the foundation upon which the system was built, you undermine its stability. The system itself then begins to collapse.
My Message to Those Who Reject This
And here’s my message.
If you deny God and deny the Christian foundation of this country, you deny the source of our rights. You may insist that America is merely a secular project. You may claim it can be reshaped to meet whatever cultural whim dominates the moment. If you insist on that, then I have two things to say.
First, I pray that you repent, hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept the grace offered to you.
But if you refuse—if you insist on the continued secularization and erosion of this nation—then the message is simple:
Leave.
We do not share values. We do not share first principles.
A nation cannot exist without a shared moral foundation.
To deny that foundation is an attempt to subvert the greatest nation ever created. It also works to manipulate it for selfish ends.
And that, ironically, is exactly what Christianity stands opposed to.
0 comments