Rss

  • youtube

Christianity in the Public Square – Part II – The Founders’ Establishment Clause v. the Modern Secularists’ Separation Clause

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : September 27, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution

In Part I we examined statements made in a newspaper article by a Baptist minister and a retired school teacher who support a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) seeking removal of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments located on the State Capitol grounds. [Hoberock, 9-9-13] In opposition to the monument, the minister and teacher made a series of comments which serve as a basis for examining the larger issue of Christianity in the public square. Part I dealt with the legitimacy or right to express one’s faith in the public square. In Part II we shall move to the larger issue of what the Founders meant by inclusion of the Establishment clause in the First Amendment.

To help us do so, we look to comments by the minister and teacher which express popular but misguided understandings of the Constitution with regard to religion in general and Christianity in particular:

He is trying to express his faith in the public square. He shouldn’t be doing that with monuments trying to make it look like the government is endorsing his particular faith. [Minister referring to the person who paid for the Ten Commandments monument with private funds.]

I am a religious person and to me separation of church and state isn’t the concern about the government trying to control my religion. It is concern about religion trying to control my government. [Teacher]

Again, the validity of these comments must be examined by answering a number of questions.

• Was the Establishment clause meant to protect religion or the government?
• What were the Founders’ attitudes toward Christianity in the public square?
• Is there a difference between our government adhering to biblical principles upon which the nation was founded and the promotion of Christianity or a particular denomination thereof?

To answer the first question, we must examine the meaning of the Establishment clause and the modern misinterpretation of it as a “separation” clause. To impute the First Amendment’s Establishment clause as a separation clause is the typical misreading of the First Amendment in an attempt to drive Christianity from the public square by secular humanists. Specifically, the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof…” The phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution of the United States.

The Founders were very explicit in their words and deeds in demonstrating that religion was to play an important and central role in the public affairs of the nation. The First Amendment prohibition dealt with the establishment of a preferred religion, a state sponsored religion if you will. It also prohibited the meddling of the federal government in the free exercise thereof.

At the time of the Constitution, although the states encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored denomination. There was a time when one denomination ruled over and oppressed others. This was fresh in the minds of the people, so much so, that the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson regarding a rumor that a particular denomination would become the official denomination. It was in this context that Jefferson wrote to a gathering of Danbury Baptists at Danbury, Connecticut, on January 1, 1802 to assure them that the rumor had no basis in fact. In an attempt to assuage their fears, he said,

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [Barton, p. 41.]

Here we have a politician, visiting his constituents, to assure them that their concerns were baseless, that is, no one Christian denomination would become the official national denomination. That is the context and in no way threatens the Danbury Baptist or other denominations with expulsion from the public square by means of a wall of separation. In effect, Jefferson’s wall was a one-way wall—protecting the church from the government. That is the complete opposite of the meaning as it is used today to drive Christianity out of the public square.

Simply put, government cannot make a law respecting an establishment of religion. In the context of the times and the purpose of his letter to the Danbury Baptists, this meant “preferred religion” and not an absence of religion in government or public life.

This attitude was subsequently demonstrated a few years later by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, considered to be the father of the Constitution) who wrote,

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. [Barton, p. 32.]

Contrast Justice Story’s comments to what has occurred in this country beginning with the last half of the 20th century. Voluntary school prayer establishes a national religion, allowing students to pray allowed over their lunches establishes a national religion, displaying the Ten Commandments on public buildings is establishment of a national religion, etc. [Barton, p. 32.]

It is ironic that this belief that any hint of Christianity in the public life of the country becomes the establishment of religion. Effectively, the free exercise of religion (guaranteed in the same sentence) now triggers the prohibited establishment of religion.

In answer to our last question, there is a difference between our government’s adherence to biblical principles upon which the nation was founded and the promotion of Christianity or particular denomination of within Christianity. It is important to understand that the United States is not a nation that attempts to impose Christianity on all of its citizens but rather it is a nation founded upon on Judeo-Christian principles that form the nation’s central cultural vision. The worldview of the Founders dictated the principles or values under which the United States was founded. And with even the most cursory examination of the Founders and the history of the nation, we can unequivocally say we were founded upon Christian principles. And this is the essence of this Christian worldview as it relates to forming a nation: All of society’s laws must be subject to the authority of a higher law. This was the belief of our Founders and this belief is evident in their words and actions.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Barbara Hoberock, “Minister: Display breaches barrier,” Tulsa World, September 9, 2013, A-9.

David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1878), pp. 32, 41.

Christianity in the Public Square – Part I- The Constitution and the Ten Commandments Monument

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : September 20, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against the Capital Preservation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, seeking removal of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments located on the State Capitol grounds. The suit states that, “This piece of public property, placed upon public property, conveys an explicit religious message that supports and endorses the faiths and creeds of some churches and sects.” Brady Henderson, Legal Director with the Oklahoma ACLU, stated “Our constitution makes it clear you cannot use state property and state resources to support a particular religion and this monument does just that.” [foxnews.com]

A recent newspaper article featured the opinions of a Baptist minister and a retired school teacher, both of whom support the lawsuit. [Tulsa World, 9-9-2013] The article offered a number of quotes by the two opponents of the monument which parrot much of the common but misguided understanding of the Constitution with regard to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Here are some excerpts from their statements:

Most of my concern is that this is another in-your-face attempt by misguided Christians to assert their faith in the public square. [Minister]

If Christians want to share their faith, they should do it face-to-face. They do not need to try to find ways to dominate the public square and impose their will on everyone else. [Minister]

I believe wholeheartedly religion is a personal, private issue and I do not want the government telling me how to worship. [Teacher]

The validity of these comments must be examined by answering a number of questions:

• What rights do Christians have to express their faith in the public square?
• Why must Christians only express their faith face-to-face?
• Are the First Amendment rights of Christians to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech being violated by attempts to quell expressions of faith in the public square?

Questions raised by other statements of the two opponents to the monument are addressed in Part II.

The issue of expressing one’s faith raised by the minister is archetypal in that it clearly defines the conflicts surrounding the assault on Christianity in the public arena. The minister appears to be saying that any attempt to share one’s faith in the public arena, other than face-to-face, is misguided and an attempt to dominate the public square and impose their will on everyone else. The rebuttal to the minister’s and the teacher’s assertions must be made on two levels.

Our first response is to Christians. Christians that are faithful to Christ and his direction for living in this world must recognize the importance of sharing the Christian faith. According to Scripture (Matthew 28:19-20), one must teach all nations to observe His commandments. But this response, addressed to Christians, will not satisfy non-Christians.

The minister’s requirement that such displays of faith be made only in a face-to-face manner are hypocritical given the fact that Christians are being punished for merely exercising their right of free speech about their faith. TSgt. Layne Wilson, a 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard, was reprimanded after he emailed a letter to someone he believed to be a chaplain at West Point. In the email he objected to a gay wedding that was to be held in the West Point chapel which at the time was a violation of the law. As a result of his email, he was officially reprimanded and denied a six-year reenlistment contract and allowed only a one-year extension. He was told that he his views were “…no longer compatible with further military service,” [foxnewsinsider.com] University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs fired Crystal Dixon, then interim associate vice president for human resources, in 2008 for publicly expressing an opinion contrary to school policy. Dixon claimed the school’s action violated her First Amendment right to free speech but lost her appeal when a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the University’s firing of Dixon after she wrote an editorial for the Toledo Free Press expressing her opinion that the homosexual lifestyle was not a civil right but a choice. The court ruled that the school’s interest in promoting its values and policies outweighed Dixon’s free-speech interests. [worldmag.com] These are just two examples of the rampant and pernicious hostility in all spheres of American life to Christians’ expressions of their faith.

Our second rebuttal to the minister’s and teacher’s assertions is made to the humanists and non-Christians. For the secularist, humanist, or others not holding the Christian faith, we counter with a question, “Why not discuss with someone what they should believe, either publicly or privately?” Who made the rule that we shouldn’t? The airwaves are filled with thousands of people discussing their most intimate and private lives before millions of people. Some will counter that discussions of religion and faith is just not done in polite society. However, is it a matter of etiquette to not offer a solution and solace to those in pain or despair? If one were in a dire, life-threatening situation and the secularist or humanist held the means of escape, would he or she hesitate to offer assistance? Of course they wouldn’t. Likewise, Christians are not imposing their views on anyone but sharing the difference Jesus has made in their lives and they care enough about others to want to share His (Christ) message in the hope that other lives will be similarly transformed. [Johnson, p. 183.]

As one can see, the comments of the minister and teacher do not deal with the Ten Commandments but larger issues of the supposed separation of church and state which will be dealt with in Part II. But let’s return to the issue at hand by looking at the words of John Quincy Adams, one of America’s Founders and the sixth president of the United States, with regard to the Ten Commandments and their place in civil and municipal government.

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code…laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity [secular history]…to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue [Ten Commandments] lays down. [Barton, p. 178.]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

“ACLU sues to remove Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument” foxnews.com, August 22, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/aclu-sues-to-remove-oklahoma-10-commandments-monument/#ixzz2dHrcZwgM (accessed August 28, 2013).

Barbara Hoberock, “Minister: Display breaches barrier,” Tulsa World, September 9, 2013, A-9.

Todd Starnes, “Nat’l Guardsman Punished for Objecting to Gay Marriage in Military Chapel,” foxnewsinsider.com, July 11, 2013. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/07/11/national-guard-veteran-layne-wilson-punished-objecting-gay-marriage-west-point-chapel#ixzz2eb2PMRzw (accessed September 11, 2013).

Leigh Jones, “Court says college administrator has no right to oppose gay rights,” worldmag.com, December 21, 2012. http://www.worldmag.com/2012/12/court_says_ college_administrator_has_no_right_to_oppose_gay_rights (accessed 9-11-13).

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 183.

David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 178.

Thrill killers, the ACLU, Benjamin Spock, and C. S. Lewis

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : September 13, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Culture Wars, Worldview

Two young men and their driver (all ages 15 to 17) residing in a small rural town in southern Oklahoma allegedly killed a twenty-two year old college student from Australia by shooting him in the back while he jogged down a road. The only motive mentioned by one of the alleged perpetrators was “boredom”. Within a week another random attack killed an 88-year-old World War II veteran in Spokane, Washington. The two 16-year-old killers’ only motive was robbery. The man was only slightly above five feet tall and died of severe head injuries. What threat could this diminutive 88-year old man have posed to cause the 16-year-olds to beat him to death? These are but two instances among hundreds if not thousands occurring in the United States each year.

Few people in America are unaware of the recent spate of so-called “thrill killings” in various parts of the country. Headlines blaze and talk shows buzz. People shake their heads and use adjectives such as “senseless, heatless, and soulless.” The first reaction to these irrational takings of human life is incomprehension, then anger. We wonder why all of this is happening with increasing frequency and heinousness. Then a quiet sense of unease casts a pall over our minds as we see the evil that is rooted in our being, that indelible hereditary sin stain that has passed down to us from our first ancestor. Either as victim or perpetrator, we wonder, “There but for the grace of God, go I …”

Pundits and experts search for motives and causes that can be addressed and treated, or they attempt to fix the blame on some failure of society or some perceived culpable villains (i.e., the perpetrator becomes the victim). The solutions come in all shapes and sizes including more laws, more regulation, or added layers of social engineering. But the real culprit is the domination of American institutions and popular culture by those holding the humanistic worldview. Always ready with excuses, reasons, and solutions, the humanists with humanistic answers merely exacerbate the trauma inflicted on a society whose central cultural vision is no longer anchored to the biblical worldview.

It has been a half century since prayer was allowed in American schools. The posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and on our public buildings is now illegal. Young people are not taught the values upon which this nation was founded. In fact, they are taught that there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, and all religions and belief systems have equal value.

Unrestrained by tradition or other moral force, popular culture denigrates the central cultural vision upon which the nation was founded. Tradition, by itself, can only maintain a central cultural vision for a time as the moral capital accumulated from adherence to that vision is eroded. If a society’s central vision is corrupt or false, that rebellion may be a good thing if one assumes that there are moral absolutes of right and wrong, truth and falsity. But a popular culture that misreads and wars against the validity of a morally sound central cultural vision will cause that culture to disintegrate. [Johnson, p. 367.]

Oklahoma’s State Capitol is seventy miles north of the little town of Duncan where three bored youths allegedly shot Chris Lane who died in the ditch where he fell. On the grounds of the State Capitol stands a monument paid for with private funds and inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The sixth commandment reads “You shall not murder” (NKJV). Six days after the murder of Chris Lane, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against Capital Preservation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, seeking removal of the monument. The suit states that, “This piece of public property, placed upon public property, conveys an explicit religious message that supports and endorses the faiths and creeds of some churches and sects.” Brady Henderson, Legal Director with the Oklahoma ACLU, stated “Our constitution makes it clear you cannot use state property and state resources to support a particular religion and this monument does just that.” [Fox News.com]

In answer to Mr. Henderson’s interpretation of the Constitution, we once again return to the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, reputed to be the father of the Constitution which speaks volumes about Story’s understanding of the Founders’ meaning with regard to the Constitution and its Amendments).

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it, the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation (condemnation), if not universal indignation. [Barton, p. 32.]

One wonders if any of the killers in Duncan, Oklahoma and Spokane, Washington would have had second thoughts about their actions if at some point during their school years a copy of the Ten Commandments had been posted on their school room wall and a teacher had taken the time to explain what each commandment meant.

Even prominent humanists recognize the loss of our fundamental values in American society. One such was Benjamin Spock, famous for his baby care book. His life’s work and influence greatly advanced the humanistic worldview in America. He remained a champion of humanism throughout his life, and his efforts were recognized when he was named Humanist of the Year in 1968. In 1994, four years before the end of his life at age ninety, Spock wrote A Better World for Our Children – Rebuilding American Family Values. In the book Spock expressed considerable concern as he viewed the harmful effects of society on American children.

I am near despair. My despair comes not only from the progressive loss of values in this century, but from the fact that present society is simply not working. Societies and people who live in them fall apart if they lose their fundamental beliefs, and the signs of this loss are everywhere. [Spock, p. 15.]

Amazingly, Spock remained oblivious to humanism’s disintegrating effects and did not see that the ills of society are a direct result of well over a century of humanism’s dominance in American life as it stripped away our fundamental beliefs instilled by a biblical worldview. In his book The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis captured the essence of this cultural madness brought about by the unwitting soldiers in the army of the “knowledge class” having been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview.

It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them a chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth…It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so. All the time…we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible…In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. [Lewis, p. 704.]

America is losing its fundamental beliefs. America’s original central cultural vision is held together by the moral capital banked decades ago but is near depletion. Faced with a hostile popular culture and leadership in our American institutions that embrace the humanistic worldview, we are in critical danger of forever losing the central cultural vision established by the Founders—those men with chests.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 367.

“ACLU sues to remove Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument” Fox News.com, August 22, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/aclu-sues-to-remove-oklahoma-10-commandments-monument/#ixzz2dHrcZwgM (accessed August 28, 2013).

David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1989), p. 32.

Dr. Benjamin M. Spock, A better World for Our Children – Rebuilding American Family Values, (Bethesda, Maryland: National Press Books, 1994), p. 15.

C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 1944, 1947, 1971, 1974), p. 704.

The Baby Veronica Case: Symptom of America’s eroding central cultural vision

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : September 6, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Culture Wars

Veronica is the little four-year-old girl who is at the center of an epic custody battle between her South Carolina adoptive parents and her biological father. A member of the Cherokee Tribe, the father agreed to give custody to the birth mother four months after Veronica’s birth but claims he had not known the birth mother had placed her up for adoption. The adoptive parents raised Veronica from her birth in 2009 to December 2011 when the biological father won custody from a South Carolina Court under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 which gives a tribe the right to intervene in custody cases of children with any degree of Indian blood. However, in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that the Indian Child Welfare Act didn’t automatically guarantee the father custody. The South Carolina Supreme Court took custody away from the father and gave it to the adoptive parents. The South Carolina Court issued an order for the father to surrender custody immediately after he failed to bring Veronica to a court-ordered visitation with the adoptive parents. The child was never surrendered to the adoptive parents and remains in Oklahoma in the custody of the father while he awaits extradition to South Carolina to face felony charges for custodial interference. [Tulsa World, 8-25-13, 9-5-13.]

Indian tribes have become aggressive in not only defending but expanding tribal sovereignty into many areas of American life heretofore undreamed of. As a result many of the rights of Indians and tribal sovereignty are now superior to many of the rights of all Americans and the laws that govern them. The ICWA of 1978 is but one example. Under the guise of preserving tribal culture, the tribes have used law to prevent adoption of Indian children by non-Indians. The rationale for tribal interventions is summarized by the remarks of Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association.

Tribal culture remains much alive and part of daily life. That culture is absorbed by living with your family and being with the extended family of your tribe and clan. If children grow up never knowing that way of life, they might not realize what they’ve missed. But that doesn’t make the loss any less real. This is about the rights of children to have their heritage and their culture. It’s about the rights of an Indian child to be raised Indian. [Tulsa World, 8-25-13.]

Mr. Cross’s statements raise a multitude of questions and problems for a society and culture already reeling from the disintegrating effects of the ascending humanistic worldview.

• To what degree of blood constitutes an Indian? In other words, how much Indian blood does it take to be an Indian—1/16th or 1/32nd or 1/64th or 128th? Does even one drop of Indian blood make one an Indian?
• In preserving one’s heritage, why is it more important to preserve the heritage of the 1/16th Cherokee and ignore the heritage represented by the other 15/16ths?
• If the law says that tribes may allow only Indians to adopt Indian children, then why shouldn’t all children placed for adoption in the United States be placed only with parents of the same ethnicity as that of their biological parents?
• If so, how do we decide in which ethnic groups the children are to be placed when the parents are not “pure bloods”? What if the parents do not know their ethnic backgrounds
with any degree of certainty?
• And perhaps the most important question, to which does the Indian owe his primary allegiance: the Indian Tribe first or the United States of America?

Once a government begins awarding special status to particular groups in society, the ultimate combinations and permutations of rights and privileges become surreal and exceptionally divisive (e.g., affirmative action, Sharia law). Because of popular but aberrant definitions of multiculturalism and diversity, American society is drowning in a myriad of Alice in Wonderland laws, regulations, and bureaucratic intrusions that are fracturing the unity necessary for a culture to survive. That unity is defined by the nation’s central cultural vision. We see these clashes tearing at the fabric of our central cultural vision as the culture wars play out between combatants holding the opposing biblical and humanistic worldviews.

The biblical worldview’s focus is not on the differences of various groups but upon diversity’s contribution to the whole of society, and from this emphasis comes unity. Unity is made possible when each member or group is recognized as an indispensable contributor to the body and not something that stands apart. The biblical oneness of all men is shown by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles when he wrote that God made “…of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth…” [Acts 17:26 KJV] The Apostle Paul reiterates the necessity of unity in his writings to the Corinthians, “But now are they many members but one body.” [1 Corinthians 12:20 KJV]

Humanism’s definition of diversity and multiculturalism focuses on differences within society and not society as a whole. With emphasis on the differences, mass culture becomes nothing more than an escalating number of subcultures within an increasingly distressed political framework that attempts to satisfy the myriad of demands of the individual subcultures. There is a loss of unity through fragmentation and ultimately a loss of a society’s central cultural vision which leads to disintegration. Humanism’s impulse for diversity is a derivative of relativism and a perverted concept of equality. [Johnson, p. 398.]

Survival of a culture implies that it must have segregation and denial. By segregation is not meant segregation within a culture but between cultures. It must deny that which is alien and destructive to its central cultural vision. However, such a culture becomes stronger when it welcomes integration of diverse groups that share that common central vision. It is in the humanistic definition of pluralism that cultures are prone to failure. [Johnson, pp. 193, 398.]

By its very essence, culture must discriminate against those outside its boundaries that do not share its central vision. A culture must believe in its uniqueness, worth, and the superiority of its worldview. To attempt to meld together or co-mingle multiple cultures into one culture with multiple centers of vision is to create a powerless culture with little influence and place it on the road to disintegration. By definition, culture must have an inward-looking vision and resist the alien. Without such there is a loss of wholeness, and a culture’s cohesiveness dissolves into chaos as its various parts drift into orbits of parochial interests and egocentrism. [Johnson, p. 193.]

Today, America faces a cultural crisis in which the nation’s cultural unity is being undermined by a humanistic worldview that has seeped into all aspects of American life. The American central cultural vision as known by the colonists, Founders, and citizens to the present day is in peril because the “…inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost.” With such loss comes disruption and eventual disintegration.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Michael Overall, “Fight turning adoption into battle over ICWA,” Tulsa World, August 25, 2013, A-17; September 5, 2013, A-1.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for America’s Central Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 193, 398.