opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
19 Aug 2014
Every Honorable Citizen Must Condemn Partisan Indictment of Rick Perry

I hope and pray that my Democratic friends are outraged by yet another criminalization of political … Read More.

15 Aug 2014
Obama's Incomprehensible Iraq Policy Not So Incomprehensible

I am constantly amazed at the tendency of some to use the perspective of hindsight to condemn decisions of … Read More.

12 Aug 2014
Fact-Challenged and Extreme? Do You Really Want to Go There, Mr. President?

President Obama claims that the extremism and reality-challenged nature of his political opponents explain … Read More.

War on Christianity Still Alive and Well in America


Many reject the notion that a good segment of our popular culture and of our political class is at war with Christianity. But this is a real war — not a phony one, such as the left's manufactured "war on women."

This hostility toward Christianity is a global phenomenon. Radical Muslims are targeting, persecuting and, in many cases, slaughtering Christians in numerous countries around the world. But I want to talk about a softer form of hostility — though nevertheless of serious concern — that is occurring in the United States.

I filled an entire book with examples of discrimination against Christians in this country about a decade ago, and since then, there has been little or no abatement of this practice.

For example, a student in Dyer County, Tennessee, was suspended because she committed the unforgivable sin of saying "bless you" when a classmate sneezed. High-school senior Kendra Turner said her teacher told her such expressions are for church. Turner said, "She said that we're not going to have godly speaking in her class, and that's when I said we have a constitutional right." It was this objection and the student's being "disruptive and aggressive" that reportedly led to her suspension by an administrator.

Well, it seems to me that the disruption, aggressiveness and inappropriate behavior came from the teacher, not from Turner. Indeed, Turner's youth pastor, Becky Winegardner, implied that this was about not insubordination but rather the teacher's apparent hostility toward faith. "There were several students that were talking about this particular faculty member there that was very demeaning to them in regard to their faith," said Winegardner.

The secular left, the humanists, the anti-theists and sometimes the militant homosexual lobby aggressively challenge Christian expression in the public square, arguing that our Constitution mandates a strict separation of church and state. That is grossly wrong and leads to much confusion and sloppy thinking on the issue.

The First Amendment contains two religion clauses — the free exercise clause, which guarantees that we may freely exercise our religion, and the establishment clause, which prohibits the federal government from establishing a national religion or national church.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, used the expression "wall of separation between Church & State," but that language is not in the Constitution. The establishment clause is the provision that secularists and activist courts have used to argue the Constitution dictates this separation. But it was never intended to and, though courts have dramatically expanded it beyond the framers' intent, still does not require any such strict separation.

Courts have expanded it to prohibit all kinds of religious expression in state-funded venues, on the grounds that if religious expression occurs in such places, the government — state or federal — is indirectly funding or supporting a particular religion and this constitutes an establishment of religion.

This strained interpretation is absurd in light of the purpose of the clause, to prevent the establishment of a national church.

But the Turner story takes it beyond absurdity. It's ludicrous enough to say the federal or state government is establishing a national religion when a publicly funded official (e.g., a teacher) promotes a particular religion, but this was a student, not a teacher, and this was a reflexive blessing, not an act of proselytizing.

Please understand: The purpose of both religion clauses was to promote religious liberty. That is abundantly obvious with the free exercise clause, but it should be just as clear with the establishment clause. The only reason our framers would have prevented the establishment of a national religion is to protect religious liberty.

But courts have twisted the establishment clause into a weapon against religious liberty. To argue that blessing a sneezing classmate constitutes the government's establishing or even supporting a particular religion is surreal.

Further examples abound — enough to fill up another book. In the name of protecting religious liberty (for Christians, anyway), the secular left, at every turn, is choking and smothering it.

But it's not just these constitutional issues that should concern us. There is an increasing hostility toward Christians and Christianity in our culture, the liberal media, Hollywood and our universities.

For the record, if the secularists were concerned about the government's taking sides on such questions, they would also object to the rampant secularization of the curricula in schools and universities, including the demonization of our Christian heritage. They would be concerned about the preferential treatment often given to Islam. But it's not the Constitution these people are fighting for; it's Christianity that they are fighting against.

The "tolerant" left has zero tolerance for Christianity, and all Christians and all lovers of liberty would be well advised to be vigilant against this societal assault on Christianity that uses the Constitution as an excuse.

To those Christians who casually dismiss all this as beneath them because they want to focus on evangelizing and not politics, please understand that your ability to evangelize would evaporate in the absence of political freedoms. So if you want to be removed from the fight, I won't object, but please don't condemn those who willingly engage in this struggle so that you can continue to focus on evangelism.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel," will be released Sept. 8. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



2 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... Thank God!

Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:10 PM
Sir;... I doubt there is any sort of constitutional mandate against Christianity at all... It is hell for you to have enough variation to religion so Christianity cannot set up shop in government and claim all it feels due. And here I offer a simple possibility for consideration: That Christians don t give one shiney shet for tolerance, and it is because Christians are so intolerant that they are so hated. Jesus did not come here to save the world, but gave those who wanted it the opportunity for salvation. Why it is that every low life in the world gravitates to positions of authority in order to push people out of their freedom, and call it the will of God is a wonder. That same grade of creature can be found in the IRS, the police force, and the prison system. The no account asses who tie their accounts to the star of Jesus do positive damage to Christianity, True Christians and religion. Do you think it will matter when it comes time to get religion out of government that the Christians claim their privilages are God Given? If that is so; then why was provision made for them in the constitution? This privilage supported by the people has always been the privilage to be freely abused by the churches. Not since abolition have the churches stood on the right side of liberty, and then there were as many against liberty as for. Tell then, what liberty you stand for.. You support the liberty to abuse people and deny them their rights based upon a mere majority. You support the liberty to steer government to your will which no one person in the world can show is rational. There is a time for prayers for sure; and it is when people have done all that is humanly possible to achieve good. We expect God to have a finger on the scale, but when religions refuse to do anything in the face of disaster but to invite faith and hard feelings against the immoral they are truly expecting God to save us from their folly. Presuming that God cares to save such a godless and religious people; doesn't their constant invocation of one they despise, deny, and try at every opportunity threaten all of us. Everytime I do Good, I act as the hand of God. When these numbskulls do all within their power to gum up the works of government; who does that serve? And we have all seen what murderers these priests and puppets can be when ever they feel justified. Who is to stop them from turning against us, or from turning against democratic government simply because they can, and some self annoited saint dares them to.
It would be best for everyone if those who believe; and I mean, truly believe- would give up their say in government and let the rational carry on the business of rational government. Since no one can show that the denominations have ever been a friend of any liberty beyond their own brand of tyranny; the churches have no right to complain. We have never grown more free supporting religious privilage. All privilage comes out of the rights of the people, and the people should not be denied their rights to support a bunch of overbearing tax cheats. To build a political power base on a privilaged group whose privilage no longer has the support of the people is irrational. If you really believe in religious freedom, the support for religious privilage must end, and the full support of individual rights must begin.
Try to understand sir; that you right wing nuts in constantly attacking government and trying to bring about its ruin are undercutting your own privilages to do so. If the people are forced to write a new constitution because the old government has failed them; do you think for a moment that sane people would support these outrageous privilages like press, and religion, and property? The parties are not officially supported by this constitution. Do you believe they will be written into the next Constitution? I doubt it. I think the Churches will be appealing to God to reinstate their former privilages in Vain. It is funny that a dirty hick like Jesus realized people did not have to be politically powerful to be personally effective, and all these churches lust after besides money is the political power to push people away from God.
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:52 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
David Limbaugh
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 25 Aug 2014
Newspaper ContributorsUpdated 22 Aug 2014
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 22 Aug 2014

27 May 2008 McCain Takes Obama to School on Iraq

6 Mar 2009 There'll Be No Debate

20 Oct 2009 Barack's Enemies List