It’s not so much that anti-Christian liberals are winning the ideological war; it’s that (1) some Christians have joined their side and bought into their flawed arguments and (2) other Christians can’t be bothered with politics because they maintain the Bible’s not about politics.
I saw this comment on a Facebook post, and I had to respond:
“I’m in Georgia, and all I ever hear is Hillary bashing. Guess it depends on your circle of friends. I’m a Hillary supporter and am constantly marginalized by my Christian friends.”
Here was my initial response:
“How does a Christian reconcile Hillary’s support for killing unborn babies and same-sex sexuality? Then there are her anti-biblical and destructive economic policies.”
The following is her response to my response:
“I’m not sure that my explanation would make much difference to you since you started the conversation with baby killing and the need to apply biblical principles to the State. I am a Christian, I am a mother of five, I am a teacher, I am a Democrat, I am a defender of the Constitution, and a believer in the separation of church and state. That is as much as I feel compelled to say. Productive political discussion should not begin with emotionally charged accusations. I prefer logos to pathos. Thank you for proving my point, though.”
Here is what I wrote in response:
“What else should we call killing unborn babies? Choice? Choice to do what? If someone killed one of your five unborn babies, what would you call it? I prefer logos to pathos as well. That’s why I can’t buy into the Democrat claim that they are personally opposed to abortion but they can’t impose their personal morality on others. Could the same argument be used for slavery? Of course not. If the church opposes or approves of something does this mean that topic is out of bounds politically? The anti-slavery movement in Great Britain was led by churchmen. The civil rights movement in the USA was led by the Rev. Martin Luther King. By the way, the Constitution never mentions the word church. The First Amendment is not about the separation between church and state. It’s about the limits of Congress not to establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise.”
Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Chuck Todd, “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” Notice that she describes an unborn baby as a “person,” but because there is nothing specific in the Constitution about giving unborn persons equal protection under the law, women can kill their unborn babies. Of course, the Constitution does not include a right to kill unborn persons.
By the way, I’m all for the jurisdictional separation between the institutions of Church and State which has operated in the United States for more than two centuries.
What liberals mean by the “separation between Church and State” is the separation of religion from politics, unless it’s a liberal or “progressive” version of religion that advances leftist political goals. All one has to do is see how the civil realm has been denying the religious rights of private citizens and how the State of California wants to legislate to deny Christian colleges the right to operate in terms of their religious precepts.
Consider this (“Regular Christians Are No Longer Welcome in American Culture“) from Mary Eberstadt who is the author of It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies:
“Some Christian institutions face pressure to conform to secularist ideology—or else. Flagship evangelical schools like Gordon College in Massachusetts and Kings College in New York have had their accreditation questioned. Some secularists argue that Christian schools don’t deserve accreditation, period. Activists have targeted home-schooling for being a Christian thing; atheist Richard Dawkins and others have even called it tantamount to child abuse. Student groups like InterVarsity have been kicked off campuses. Christian charities, including adoption agencies, Catholic hospitals and crisis pregnancy centers have become objects of attack.” (Source)
The Clinton supporter closed her comments with, “proof that you can’t make any comments like this without getting the hostility you were talking about. Our politics are fueled by anger, bitterness, fear — Christian or not.”
This is a typical liberal response. For liberals, to make an argument is to be argumentative. To argue against a position with reason and facts is to be hateful (“fueled by anger”). These types of comments substitute for sound argumentation. If you can’t handle an argument, don’t pretend you’re making one.