Rss

  • youtube

In Defense of Labels

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : November 15, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Christianity

Max Lucado is a wonderful and inspiring writer. Few writers can match his ability to bring fresh insights, infuse substance, and bring clarity to both the commonplace and complex things of life. One of his recent website posts was titled Simply ‘Church’.” He posed two questions, “…what would happen if all the churches agreed, on a given day, to change their names simply to ‘church’?…if there are no denominations in heaven, why do we have denominations on earth?” His point was that we should not attend a church based on the sign outside, but we should join our hearts to the like-minded hearts of the people on the inside. [Max Lucado]

This is a noble sentiment and reflects the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the Romans, “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Romans 15: 5-6. KJV] In other words, the church should be in unity in thought and message. Matthew Henry stated, “The foundation of Christian love and peace is laid in like-mindedness. This like-mindedness must be according to Christ Jesus…” In other words, Christ should be our pattern because the unity of Christians glorifies God. However, Henry warns that our prayers for like-mindedness “…must be first for truth, and then for peace…it is first pure, then peaceable.”

Max Lucado’s “Simply Church” may have worked in first century Israel for there were few churches and just one Christian church. But we live in twenty-first century America with many communities that have churches on almost every corner. There are many religions, thousands of denominations, and hundreds of thousands of churches. In America most are Christian churches, each professing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. So, using the Simply Church model, how does one know which church to join oneself with? How does one know whether the people inside are like-minded? Attend one Sunday? No, first impressions are often not reliable proofs of like-mindedness. Then attend a year? No, for one can spend much of life searching for instead of fellowshipping with like-minded Christians. Thus, discovering like-minded believers without using labels can be a difficult and time-consuming task.

Labels are useful and compatible with divine order. God used labels during the Creation. He labeled trees in the Garden…the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He labeled the rivers going out of Eden. God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, “…and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” And from Adam’s side He made him a wife who “shall be called Woman.” [Genesis 2:9-23. KJV]

In our search for like-mindedness with other Christians, we must return to Matthew Henry’s admonition that our quest must first be for truth and then for peace. In that quest for truth, labels are invaluable and become a type of shorthand for what we know to be true or not true (the written word as well as symbols, e.g., fish symbol, the cross, the dove).

Throughout the ages language has been the means of achieving order in culture. Knowledge of truth comes through the word which provides solidity in the “shifting world of appearances.” Richard Weaver called words the storehouse of our memory. In our modern age humanists have effectively used semantics to neuter words of their meaning in historical and symbolic contexts, that is, words now mean what men want them to mean. By removing the fixities of language (which undermines an understanding of truth), language loses its ability to define and compel. As the meaning of words is divorced from truth, relativism gains supremacy, and a culture tends to disintegration without an understanding of eternal truths upon which to orient its self. [Richard Weaver]

Therefore, the problem with simply “Church” is that we live in a fallen world, and there are competing voices each professing truth. Removing the labels and being simply “Church” won’t work when we must give priority to truth. Without truth, simply “Church” won’t achieve like-mindedness in a world immersed in a relativistic sea of shifting appearances. In such a world labels become our anchors to truth.

I am thankful for my denomination, and I’m thankful that it is not labeled simply “Church.” Without its label, many like-minded Christians would drive on by not knowing they have a fellow believer on the inside. Although I believe my denomination has the best understanding of God’s truth, I have no animosity towards other Christians who genuinely seek God and believe their understanding of biblical truth is more accurate than mine. I wish them well for we are all followers of Jesus Christ on this earth and like-minded on the truths of the major tenets of our faith. And we’ll all be members of simply Church when we get to heaven.

Labels also help us identify those with whom we should not be in fellowship. The Bible says that there are many churches with misleading labels who have false prophets and false teachers that have abandoned biblical truth and will not be a part of that gathering in heaven. Also, other religions have labels that may accurately depict what’s on the inside, but what’s on the inside is a false religion whose god is not the great I AM and does not lead to truth or a heavenly home.

When traveling I have occasionally driven along the streets of a city unfamiliar to me in search of a church to attend. First, I spot a cross on top of a steeple in the distance. I then look for the label on that local branch of Christianity. In a few seconds I have some understanding of the truth held by those inside and whether they are like-minded or not. I like labels here on earth, but I’m glad we won’t need them in heaven and that we’ll be simply ‘Church.’

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Max Lucado, “Simply ‘Church’,” Max Lucado, November 4, 2013. http://808bo.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/max-lucado-simply-church/ (accessed November 6, 2013).

Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p.1794.

Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 148-149, 152, 158, 163.

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.

The Christian’s role in politics and government

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : June 7, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Government

In the last article (Government is not the problem…however) we discussed the Founders’ beliefs with regard to politics and government which are radically different from what most people believe today. Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined politics as:

The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest … and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.

Politics in the founding era included a belief that regulation and government of a nation had a moral component and that its responsibilities included the preservation and improvement of the morals of the citizenry. Contrast the Founders’ beliefs with modern antiseptic attitudes and the resultant cleansing of any hint of religion or moral absolutes not only from politics and government but from all institutions of American life.

This attitude is prevalent throughout America including a large segment of Christianity. The attitude has grown from decades of misapplication of the First Amendment and an erroneous understanding of Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state. The First Amendment is an “establishment” clause, not a “separation” clause. It was meant to prohibit the government from establishing one specific sect as the official church of the nation. The Establishment clause was not meant to banish religion and its influence from the public arena, politics, government, and the institutions of American life.

Jefferson’s words with regard to a wall of separation between church and state were merely to assure the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut that no one church would be established as the official church of the United States. Effectively, it was meant to protect the church from the state, not the state’s protection of the people from religion. Who better to explain the Founders’ intent than a Supreme Court Justice of the era? Joseph Story was appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, regarded as the father of the Constitution. Story wrote of the Establishment clause:

The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less advance Mohometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy (a denominational council) the exclusive patronage of the national government.

This meaning was clearly understood by the vast majority of Americans and the courts until Jefferson’s words were taken out of context by the Supreme Court in 1947. In the Everson case the Supreme Court extracted eight words (“a wall of separation between church and state”) from Jefferson’s speech with total disregard for its original meaning and context. This was the beginning of the systematic removal of religion from the public square and the nation’s various institutions.

From this misunderstanding of religion’s rightful place in government, many Christians have generally shied away from any significant involvement in politics and government over the last three decades. To dispel this notion, Wayne Gruden published a pamphlet titled, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Gruden presents a strong biblical basis for Christian involvement to significantly influence law, politics, and government …according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible.” At the same time Gruden cautions that Christians “…must simultaneously insist on maintaining freedom of religion for all citizens.” How is this balance achieved?

…the overarching moral suasion (influence or persuasion) of Christian principles under which our nation was founded made possible religious freedom for all faiths. Such moral suasion of Christian principles is not coercive as humanists would have us believe. The moral suasion of Christian principles provided the nation with a central vision and resulted in stability and unity by working through the individual as he voluntarily chooses the manner in which he orders his soul. [Johnson, Ye shall be as gods, p. 224.]

As a result of the over-arching Christian worldview, the nation exhibited an exceptionally strong religious sanction at its founding. This religious sanction was the power of Christian teaching over private conscience that made possible American democratic society. The religious sanction resulted because colonial and founding-era Americans held the biblical worldview and were significantly involved in government and politics. To confirm the existence of this strong religious sanction that still held sway over the nation forty years after the Constitutional Convention, we look to the words of Alexis De Tocqueville’s 1831 Democracy in America, one of the most influential political texts ever written about America.

Americans so completely identify the spirit of Christianity with freedom in their minds that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive the one without the other…

On my arrival in the United States, it was the religious atmosphere which first struck me. As I extended my stay, I could observe the political consequences which flowed from this novel situation.

In France I had seen the spirit of religion moving in the opposite direction to that of the spirit of freedom. In America, I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.

Tocqueville went on to say that the peaceful influence exercised by religion over the nation was due to separation of church and state. Unlike the modernists’ separation of church and state, Tocqueville’s separation was a separation of the spheres of power and not a separation of government from ethics and moral guidance supplied by the moral suasion of Christianity.

In twenty-first century America, the Christians’ role in politics and government should be the same as the role played by Christians in the founding of America. They were significantly involved in government, politics, and law such that the power of Christian teaching over private conscience made possible American democratic society. To restore the biblical worldview as the basis for governing the nation, Christians must become significantly more involved in government and politics, and it must happen now before it is too late.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:
Noah Webster, “Politics,” American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1995).
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, & Co., 1833). Vol. III, p. 728, paragraph 1871.

Wayne Gruden, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Booklet adapted from Wayne Gruden, Politics – According to the Bible – A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010).

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. 224.

Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Gerald E. Bevan, Trans., (London, England: Penguin Books, 2003), pp. 343, 345.

I’m so ashamed! I was a member of a hate group and didn’t know it.

Posted by :Larry G. Johnson On : April 30, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

They say confession is good for the soul, and after the shocking news I received a few days ago, I must somehow make amends for my life of crime. It’s a sordid story that began in my childhood. I can’t take all of the blame. Maybe it was peer pressure or parent pressure. Who knows? But I was molded, shaped, and destined for a life of hate. What’s worse, I am responsible for corrupting my own children with that hateful lifestyle. They say ignorance is not an excuse, but I really didn’t know that what I was doing was wrong. Actually I looked at my beliefs and activities as a badge of honor and felt that I was doing good works for the country.

The news came a few days ago as I was browsing through my emails, and there it was: the Family Research Council email warning us that our cover had been blown (it was only then that I realize that FRC is an avowed enemy of the state, a hate group organization with whom I’m associated-unofficially of course).

It seems that a certain military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jack Rich, discovered that a number of groups in America “did not share our Army values.” This shocking discovery prompted him to send an email to thirty-eight of his fellow officers and NCOs (non-commissioned officers) to educate them that “when we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army values—don’t just walk by—do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.”

Well, I can tell you his warning sent chills down my spine! I lay awake several nights knowing that LTC Rich and the Army were not ignoring my behavior while wondering how they would address my problem. And I just can’t take it any longer so I’m confessing. I’m an evangelical Christian. And worse yet and to my undying shame I have been a member or fellow traveler of several subversive, hate-filled organizations including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council.

I know I can do nothing to atone for my sin other than to throw myself on the mercy of LTC Rich and the U.S. Army. Yet, I think there are some circumstances that might mitigate whatever punishment I receive. First, I blame the Army for not doing more to re-educate me before I became too deeply immersed in my life of hate. I was young and impressionable when I received the letter from President Johnson informing me of his invitation to join the military in 1967. If they had done the proper background checks, they would have known of my hateful tendencies and radical Christian associates and could have dealt with them then. I hadn’t intended to violate Army values. Heavens, I didn’t know there were any Army values other than to do what I was told by anyone with more than one stripe on their sleeves or they would kick my you-know-what to @#%! and back. (Sorry for the language but “Heavens” has been a part of my vocabulary for many years, and old habits are hard to break.)

But I’ve thought a lot about those days long ago since my discovery last week that I was deeply involved with domestic hate groups. Perhaps the Army realized back in 1967 that I didn’t share their values and that they did the right thing by sending me to Vietnam as a way of dealing with my issues before they became a problem. Certainly, a lot of people with those issues didn’t return from Vietnam to cause problems. Oh well, who knows?

I’m so glad to get this off my chest. I’m feeling much better already. I wonder if they will give me probation and allow me to join HA (Haters Anonymous). Perhaps I could be a group leader and go to some of those organizations identified by LTC Rich and show them the error of their ways:

• The Christian Right
• Various Racist Skinhead groups
• American Family Association (my alma mater of many years ago)
• Ku Klux Klan
• Family Research Council
• Various Neo-Nazi groups

These are just a few of the organizations identified by LTC Rich with the aid of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As the old saying goes, “The fields are white unto harvest!” I could be sort of a missionary spreading Army values across the land. Oops, sorry for the biblical language again.

It’s good to know there are other true patriots in the U.S. Army besides LTC Rich who have implemented a number of initiatives to expose or root out hate group activities in the military:

• A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;
• A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
• A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;
• Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;
• Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;
• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions;
• Catholic chaplains were told not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop related to Obamacare mandates. The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

Well, this just goes to show those who think the country’s going to the dogs are wrong. There is hope for America with patriots such as LTC Rich spreading Army values!

With deep and sincere remorse,

An older but wiser—Larry G. Johnson.

Sources:

Todd Starnes, “The Army’s List of ‘Domestic Hate Groups’,” Fox News Radio, April 10, 2013. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/the-armys-list-of-domestic-hate-groups.html (accessed April 24, 2013).

“Are you an enemy of the state?” Family Research Council, April 11, 2013. http://www.frc.org/alert/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state (accessed April 24, 2013).