As the coils of secular government begin to tighten on the Church, the clerics are finally beginning to notice. Here Francis Cardinal George lists some of the encroachments and sounds an alarm. Elsewhere, a group of pastors were arrested in New York for protesting the City’s decision, upheld by the federal courts, to rent public space to any and all groups except churches.
For 39 years abortion has been “legal” in this country, and for 39 years 99% of pastors have been virtually silent on the issue. The government has used the public schools to indoctrinate children from Christian homes and churches into atheism and immoral sexual practice and the pastors have been similarly silent if not supportive. Now, in the final stages of the radical secularization of the country, when the government feels strong enough to just go around shutting churches down outright, the pastors notice.
Better late than never I suppose. Although God might well say as He does in Isaiah 1:15 that He will not hear the prayers of those whose hands are full of blood. How can a Church that has stopped its ears and turned its eyes from the littlest victims of injustice now cry to God for justice? It may even be that the only hope for the Church in America today is for the government to shut down all the existing compromised, man-pleasing church enterprises so we can try again.
Speaking of games, the whole world is flipping out over Tim Tebow violating the Constitutional separation of Church and Football by taking a knee in prayer and thus confessing his faith in the public square. 
The public square is reserved for things like Gay Pride parades and defecating on police cars, not shameless demonstrations of faith in Jesus. When will the courts take action against this transgression?
Pay no attention to that man “Tebowing” in the snow.
The ban is against all religious groups, not just Christians.
I haven’t seen anyone forbidding Tebow from doing his devotional, but I have heard criticism (as well as plenty of supportive voices). I don’t see the problem.
Contrast the support given to the Ground Zero mosque by NY officials with the grief they put the Greek Orthodox St. Nicholas Church through.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/st-nicholas-greek-orthodox-church-ground-zero_n_1011783.html
The City’s stated reason for denying facilities to “all religious groups” was that Christians meet on Sunday when the facilities are the most vacant, and tht this gave the appearance of government approval of Christianity in particular. So the policy is directed against Christianity in particular.
And I’m not saing it is a problem. Until the growth of evil in government, unopposed by the Church, reaches the doors of the Church, pastors are unlikely to oppose the evil. Maybe now they will, but I doubt it. They will oppose the evil of the state taking away their rice bowl but not the evil of abortion, for example. They want the same toleration they extend to satan to be shown to them. They will be disappointed.
Russ, the law is not particularly against Christians, it is against all religious groups meeting on Sunday. In this case, yes it affects Christians, but that is a categorical distinction. If NY would allow non-Christian religious groups the use of these public buildings on Sundays, Christians would have a slam-dunk discrimination suit ready in the wings, and rightly so.
Sure there was a struggle for St. Nicholas, but the Christians prevailed and NY did the right thing to make the appropriate arrangements and to accommodate a new temple site. Victory! Perhaps this is a case of looking at the glass half-empty vs. half-full?
Perhaps it is a case of just looking at the glass and not noticing the mess in the whole kitchen. My point is the contrast in the strong reaction of these pastors when anti-Christian forces in government move against their immediate busines interest versus their weak reaction to more momentous moves against innocent life, the sexual innocence of children, and the institution of marriage. Hence “late to the game.”
Further I’m not so sure we should regard a government move against all theistic religions as much better than a move against just Christians. it is still content based discrimination where say, a union or astronomy club would be able to rent the space on Sunday.
Christians can exercise their right to pray anytime thet want to. 1st Amendment right
These type of things are as a result of marginalizing religion and favoring in contradistinction a patriotic nationalism steeped in secularism. Religion – bad, irrational, divisive, violent. Patriotism – rational, unifying, peacemaking. In effect this constitutes a substitution of one religion for another, of religious faith for a civil, nationalistic faith. In so doing we overlook the violent and irrational nature of patriotism. The truth is, we are willing to sacrifice and shed blood in the name of patriotism. Religious violence is no less irrational than political violence.
How many religious leaders have we heard addressing *that* mess?
As long as we agree with “love for our country” and “faith in the USA”, we are free in public to invoke religious sentiments and the name of God. The moment God is put first, or above “love of country”, it is considered a threat, a taboo, and intolerance raises its head – it is considered a threat to unity. As William Cavanaugh states eloquently describing the dominant view of the role and understanding of religion and the secular, ” God without America can be divisive; God with America unifies us all.”
I should add that this is not a new development, such an understanding of religion and the secular is at the very heart of the founding of western nation states, including the US. It results in a domesticated and subverted Christian faith, serving and furthering the needs of the political goals of the state. This problem runs deep and wide.
I agree with your assessment in general. That is why some politicians can invoke God without complaint and others cannot. Those who cannot are those who are perceived as putting God first or at least of taking Him seriously.
Identifying and rebuking nationalist idolotry does not however require adopting an attitude of hostility or indifference to one’s country. It does not justify ignoring the hand of God in the national history or denying how God has used a particular country to advance the Kingdom.
Yes agreed. However, it will be perceived by many variously as either hostility or indifference, in so far as the gap between Gospel and country is wide. The difficulty is the ability to recognize the differences and interplays between the two, and the willingness to be Christian first, above all else. As to what it means to be Christian, that is quite another issue, no less important and which I attempted to address in my comment in your blog entry of February 8/9.