by Frank Wallis (2004)

David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Regnery Publishing, 2003.

For those with no time, click here for a summary of findings.

This is an analysis of the Limbaugh book, which claims that American Christians are being persecuted and that their persecutors are non-Christians waging war against them. Reading this volume one senses the desiccated spirit of medieval witch trials in which the "devil" is used as an explanation for human behavior. Like most Bible Christians, Limbaugh cannot cope with the dominant trend in American religion and culture, which is pluralism.

Persecution is about 400 pages in length, and the first 265 pages are devoted to the nexus of government and religion. At page 265 the topic is Hollywood and its persecution of Christians. Beginning on page 297 Limbaugh explains why America is a Christian country. Two thirds of the book is about government persecution of Christians. The final third is about the "liberal media" and their allies, and their persecution of Christian America. Behind persecution is the hidden hand of the demon "liberalism".

Support and assistance for the Limbaugh project came from famous conservatives such as Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Michael Novak, Marvin Olasky, Ravi Zacharias, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, Emily Costello, Rush Limbaugh. Yes, these are the Limbaugh brothers. David is a lawyer, and Rush is a radio personality.

[Note: page numbers in parentheses refer to pages in Persecution.]

Limbaugh's preface begins with variants of his thesis:

Limbaugh makes the classic mistake, or purposeful exaggeration, of taking criticism of conservative American leaders for criticism of Christians. Conservatives in this country are usually Bible Christians. Their regressive and backwards looking social agenda and economic brutality often provoke ridicule and criticism from progressive and forward looking liberals, not over personal faith, but over policies that impact real human beings. The "original intent" fetish, which according to Limbaugh assumes that America must be a Christian republic, cannot be made into a religious doctrine imposed on all citizens anymore than the country can be forced into becoming an Islamic republic or a Mormon republic. Limbaugh asserts the power of the First Amendment clause on free exercise of religion, but ignores the equal power of the same amendment's prohibition of established religion.

Persecution asserts that in colonial America the Bible was the primary textbook, because adults wanted children to learn how to read it. In the early 19th century public schools taught that civil liberty was founded upon Christianity, and that Christianity was the basis of the constitution. Limbaugh asserts that without this notion students cannot defend liberty or even realize that it is being violated.(67-70) Public education today is now pro-secular and anti-Christian. Limbaugh insists that public schools should be neutral, neither Christian nor secular. He astonishingly writes that he is not advocating a "return to Christian-oriented education", but spends the next two thirds of the book arguing for the exact same thing.(3)

Reading Limbaugh one wonders how poor America, deprived of true Christian indoctrination in the early 19th century, managed to defeat the Slave Power in 1865, the Kaiser in 1918, Hitler in 1945, and godless communism in the 1980s.

One powerful theme of Persecution is thus a lamentation that public schools are no longer Christian. They are secular humanist, which violates the religious freedom rights of Christians. Limbaugh fails to offer a single suggestion as to how this bipolar miracle of non-secular non-Christian education is to be achieved.

Limbaugh condemns the secularization of our schools that began to take hold from colonial times as a "dismal" mistake.(8) He traces the root of decline to Rabbi Felix Adler's New York Society for Ethical Culture, and Charles Potter's Humanism: A New Religion (1929). Educators Horace Mann and later John Dewey sought to replace Christianity with humanism as the dominant culture of America. Humanists deny revealed religion, Jesus, and the supernatural. This "religion" teaches that humans are perfectible, and that God does not exist.(65-67)

Note Limbaugh's outing of Adler as a Jew by calling him Rabbi. Adler is thus outed not only as an infidel Jew but as a secular humanist. They are all the same to Bible Christians, for in their cosmology they are all going to hell. Note also the assumption that secular humanism is a religion. Yes, there is a book with that title, and the Supreme Court has allegedly stated that secular humanism is a religion in Torcaso v Watkins (1961), but does that make it a religion on par with Christianity? Is it credible that every public school in America has been subverted and infused with teachers, administrators, and students indoctrinated firmly in the tenets and rituals of secular humanism? I wish someone would show me the nearest secular "church" and explain the liturgy, and guide me to the sacred texts of this seemingly widespread and dominant religion. In fact, it is a figment of Limbaugh's imagination.

From the amount of space devoted in Persecution to court cases involving Christians it appears that Limbaugh is most interested in the supposed right of practicing religion in the classroom. For Limbaugh, the entering wedge of secular humanism and displacement of Christianity was Everson v. Board of Ed. (1947), holding that the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state.(17-18) This is a curious claim, as later in the book Limbaugh complains that secular humanism had already destroyed the public schools by the early 20th century.(65-67) The next persecution of Christians came in 1962 with Engel v. Vitale, outlawing state sponsored prayer in public schools, a clear violation of the framers' intent.(19) Similarly, in Wallace v. Jaffrey (1985) a moment of silence for prayer in public school was ruled unlawful.(20) In Lee v. Weisman (1992) public schools were barred from asking clergy to say prayers at graduation ceremonies.(27) In the year 2000 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe held that students cannot elect a prayer leader to recite prayers over the public address system in a public school.(22) As of April 2002 the ICLU sued Woodbine School District (Iowa) to prevent the choir from singing the Lord's Prayer, at the instigation of an atheist family, and upheld by a federal district court.(32)

Limbaugh asks why a minority should be allowed to deprive a majority of their religious freedom, just because the minority does not want to participate.(23) Is that really the issue at stake in the school prayer debate? The principle at stake is that minorities must be protected against majority pressures. Government must not endorse one religion over another. After all, Christian children are free to evangelize and read their Bible for about 138 hours a week, but not for the 30 hours a week of school time. Is that not enough?

Some Christian school officials try to get around the prayer ban by having students vote for a prayer leader, but the Supreme Court saw this deception for what it was: an attempt to establish religion. How would Christians feel if they were in a minority of a Hindu majority school in which religious idols were displayed and rituals conducted before them in the hallway? According to the Limbaugh rule, the Hindus should be allowed to practice their religion and force Christians to witness the rituals, which to the Christian mind would be an abomination. They wouldn't put up with that for one minute. An extension of the Limbaugh rule would be to allow Christian children the right to read Bibles all day instead of paying attention to the teacher.

Persecution maintains that the Christ hating "separationists" are determined "to purge public schools of Christian thought, symbols, and expression".(36) Limbaugh cites numerous anecdotes of school officials persecuting Christian children by not allowing Christmas celebration, but advocating Kwanzaa, Hanukah, and the pagan Valentine's Day.(42-43) Yet, it is apparently lawful for Christian adults to give their children religious candy for distribution in school, the chief example being candy canes during Christmas, which are inscribed with evangelical phrases. However, some Christian children are persecuted for distributing Bibles to fellow students on school property. Persecution in this case means students are asked not to do this.(45) Not since the days of ancient Rome have Christians been so savagely persecuted.

As further evidence of persecution, not of Christians but of the US Constitution, Limbaugh notes that the February 2003 No Child Left Behind Act orders that voluntary prayer, Bible reading in class, and Bible study during recess be mandatory for public schools in order to qualify for federal funding.(47) I thank Limbaugh for alerting me to this obscure provision of the new law designed to improve public secular education. The conservative mantra of getting the federal government off the backs of the people and asserting states rights has just been snuffed out in favor of promoting the Christian agenda.

Thankfully, Limbaugh addresses the issue of oaths to God in the classroom. No discussion of persecution would be complete without a mention of the Pledge of Allegiance, which clearly states "under God". For Limbaugh this is an innocuous term, harmless, innocent, and not really about religion. Instead the Pledge is about democracy and freedom.(59) On a similar issue, the phrase "God Bless America" stamped on federal property is explained away by Limbaugh as "a neutral reference to God folded into a patriotic message" and a "non-sectarian exhortation".(56) To both legendary violations of the First Amendment one can only ask why not remove them if they are not religious? If they are religious why keep them? The Christian response to those queries would be a frantic defense of religious freedom, canceling out their previous claims about non-sectarianism and harmlessness. One must recognize the obvious: the term "God" is not neutral, it is religious, and means everything to Christians. No god, no Christianity. Wake up America, God is not neutral!

Persecution goes well beyond just prayer in the classroom to the separationist liberal agenda in the classroom. The liberal secular humanist conspiracy is led by the National Education Association, whose agenda includes gun control, pro-choice, and gay rights.(71) These positions are apparently anathema to true Christians. It violates their religious freedom to hear about them. Thus, our public schools are indoctrinated in the values of diversity and multiculturalism at the expense of sound Christian values like executing people found guilty of adultery.(75) Limbaugh also berates the separationist liberals for promoting anti-Christian ideas and systems in public school, such as yoga, meditation, Hinduism, Islam, animism, Earth Day, New Ageism, the Day of the Dead, and most nefariously of all, Human Sacrifice Day.(78-85) Yes, it seems the liberals are evangelizing in favor of human sacrifice. Limbaugh also points out another fraud: the secular liberal concept of toleration.(87) Now toleration is seen by Christians not as a good thing, but a bad thing, against Christianity. To tolerate other religions is persecution of Christians. Such is the perverse logic of Christians such as Limbaugh, which has led in the past to burning non-Christians at the stake.

So, the most serious problem for Limbaugh can be boiled down, as he does on page 87, to the complaint that public schools today are teaching the liberal endorsement of non-Christian and anti-Christian values. I fail to understand how liberal secular humanist separationists can also be teaching Hinduism, Islam, animism, and New Ageism. (78-85) There is no end to the contradictions of Christian persecution theorists. What textbooks and materials do these liberal teachers and officials use to teach children such a vast array of theology? How do they find the time to teach so many religions? Our kids must be polymaths of comparative religion by now. But I digress. Limbaugh is conflating "anti" with "non" into the same thing, which they are not. He at first endorsed the bipolar idea of non-secular non-Christian education (3), but now reverses himself and pleas for a Christian system.

Limbaugh notes somberly that according to the Heritage Foundation, teens who have sex before marriage are more likely to commit suicide.(89) One wonders how many suicides HF interviewed to make this amazing discovery.

At this point Persecution veers off into childhood sexuality, or more precisely the lack of scientific sex education in schools. Limbaugh mixes the problem of teen promiscuity with the problem of teen pregnancy linked by what he calls "condom-based" sex ed, to expose what else? The secular humanist conspiracy.(89ff) Limbaugh then makes the incredible claim that using condoms leads to a higher rate of teen pregnancy and STDs.(92-93) Science, he writes, clearly shows that not having sex cuts teen pregnancy rates to zero percent.(93) Well, this is amazing news, but what does it have to do with Christianity? Is it not a matter of common sense that if teens don't have sex, then pregnancy will not occur? The alternative is to use no condoms during sexual intercourse and have a 100% pregnancy rate.

Bible Christians such as Limbaugh ignore the facts on sex ed. The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that sexually active teenaged girls who do not use contraception have a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year; that out of "the approximately 950,000 teenage pregnancies that occur each year, more than 3 in 4 are unintended. Over 1/4 of these pregnancies end in abortion;" that the United States has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the developed world, nine times higher than Japan; that "Every year, roughly 4 million new sexually transmitted disease (STD) infections occur among teenagers in the United States;" that "86% of the public school districts that have a policy to teach sexuality education require that abstinence be promoted." About a third of the school districts have no sex ed at all. Half the schools in the South have fear-based abstinence only curricula, while the North has 20% of schools with fear-based abstinence only curricula. Sadly, "The proportion of sexuality education teachers who taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs increased from 1 in 50 in 1988 to 1 in 4 in 1999." There are three federal programs to support fear-based sex ed, but "There is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sexuality education that teaches young people about both abstinence and contraception." There is no evidence that fear-based sex education delays teenage sexual activity. However, there is strong evidence for comprehensive sex ed that includes both a contraception component and "just say no" propaganda. (See Alan Guttmacher Institute "Sexuality Education" www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html; David Satcher, Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior [2001])

Further, there is no proof that fear-based education programs have decreased sexual activity, unwanted pregnancies, or STDs among U.S. teenagers. (See "The Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V Section 510: Interim Report," [Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2002]) Two more studies found comprehensive sex education more effective than fear-based sex ed . (See "Emerging Answers", National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001; and "Abstinence and Safer Sex HIV Risk-Reduction Interventions for African American Adolescents", Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998.)

Regardless of who supports (allegedly the "homo lobby" in Limbaugh's mind) the use of condoms to prevent STDs and pregnancy, the evidence is overwhelming that condoms are highly effective. (For STDs see Carey, R.F.; Lytle, C.D.; Cyr, W.H. "Implications of laboratory tests of condom integrity." Sex Transm Dis [1999] 26:216-220; Pinkerton, S.D., Abramson, P.R., Turk, M.E. "Updated estimates of condom effectiveness." J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care [1998] 9:88-89; Stone, K.M., Timyan, J., Thomas, E.L. "Barrier methods for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases." In Holmes, K.K., Sparling, P.F., Mardh, P-A., Lemon, S.M., Stamm, W.E., Piot, P. and Wasserheit, J.N. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 3rd Edn. [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999]. For pregnancy prevention see Frezieres, R.G., Walsh, T.L., Nelson, A.L., Clark, V.A., Coulson, A.H. "Evaluation of the efficacy of a polyurethane condom: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial." Fam Plann Perspect [1999] 31:81-87; Fu, H., Darroch, J.E., Haas, T., Ranjit, N. "Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth." Fam Plann Perspect [1999] 31:56-63; Hatcher, R.A., Trussell J, Stewart, F. et al. Contraceptive Technology 16th Edn. [New York: Irving Publishers Inc., 1994]; Steiner, M.J., Hertz, Picciotto, I., Schulz, K.F., Sangi Haghpeykar, H., Earle, B.B., Trussell, J. "Measuring true contraceptive efficacy. A randomized approach - condom vs spermicide vs. no method." Contraception [1998] 25:429-433.)

Why this concern over sex ed in schools? Limbaugh thinks sex ed is a form of persecution of Christians. It is tied to the "homosexual agenda" promoted by the NEA, the Democrats, and liberals who are in league with the "homosexual lobby". This lobby seeks to promote "condom-based" sex ed in place of Christian abstinence programs. Limbaugh describes the goals for the "homosexual agenda" as making the gay life seem like an alternate lifestyle in hopes of recruiting innocent kids into the homosexual camp.(94) The homosexuals have a plan, according to Limbaugh, to make their agenda part of normal civil rights.(98) Homosexuals have succeeded in making public schools follow policies that prevent gays from being singled out for punishment.(97) One must assume that the Christians of Limbaugh's camp wish to reverse this trend and single out gays for punishment, as in the good old days. It must be especially galling for Limbaugh that the Supreme court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) legalizing consensual sex between adults of the same sex. What ever will the Christians do about this continual persecution?

Limbaugh states that colleges in America are persecuting Christians because they are basically anti-Christian, and their faculties are nothing but secular humanists.(111) Here is his proof: Christianity is the dominant view in America, and such views are absent on college campuses.(112) Some Christian students feel bad they can't study creationism in place of evolution.(114, 117) Colleges persecute Christians by offering courses on Islam, pornography, and gay issues.(128) For Limbaugh, human sexuality is persecuting Christians. It is persecution when UNC-Chapel Hill proposed a sexual studies department. (131) Limbaugh's list of offending colleges is made of an astounding five schools: UNC, Wisconsin, Texas A&M, Wesleyan, and Carnegie-Mellon. But there are thousands of colleges in America! Only five examples? And what is he ranting about? Islam, porn, and gay issues, all perfectly legal subjects of intellectual study.

Further proof of persecution is the case of a Nebraska football coach who got a reject notice from Stanford after a job interview. The coach alleges that Stanford hired someone else because they knew the coach spoke out against homosexuals.(123) Maybe they just didn't want a prejudiced man coaching players at one of the top universities on the planet, in a state (CA) which takes very seriously the bashing of gays.

More astounding evidence of Christian persecution: 1) the University of South Carolina dares to offer courses in women's studies which question sexism and racism; 2) 90% of faculty in liberal arts are Democrats or Greens; 3) most Ivy League professors voted for Al Gore in 2000; 4) college commencement speakers at the top 50 universities were liberal; 5) conservative activist Dan Flynn was discouraged (but not prevented) from speaking at Michigan State College; 6) protesters spit at Dinesh D'Souza and Ward Connerly at Columbia U.; 7) conservative newspapers have been stolen at seven campuses; 8) courses at some colleges are about marxism, queer theory, death, suicide, women's studies, and post-modernism.(134-40) Clearly the end of the world here.

Should I even comment on this mélange of madness? Of course I will. Al Gore is a born-again Christian, so what is the problem with voting for him? How does Limbaugh know that 50 commencement speakers are liberal? On the issue of student newspapers, at least conservative students have wealthy funders like Scaife to subsidize their rags. Finally, how is the existence of courses in college anti-Christian? Limbaugh has an aversion to knowledge. He thinks the only textbook anyone really needs is the Bible, a concept borrowed from the European Middle Ages, when the ruling elites in church and state believed all knowledge was already known, based on the Bible. No need for science or asking difficult questions. If someone had a question they asked a priest. If something good happened they praised God. If something bad happened they praised God and blamed the devil. This is the ignorant superstitious world view that the Limbaugh camp has in store for America.

Limbaugh's Great Satan is the concept of "post-modernism", which he describes as tolerance, openness, and diversity. Post-modernism is not true. Christianity is true. Therefore teaching post-modernism is persecution of Christians. If only Christianity is true, then God intervenes in history. No need for asking why things happen. To teach otherwise would be anti-Christian and persecution of Christians.(140) I have to ask what this idea would do to academe. The stifling of questions is the surest way to throw us back into the Middle Ages. If asking questions about history is anti-Christian persecution then call me an infidel.

The insidious designs of liberals are evident even among historians. Limbaugh quotes Dr. C. Bradley Thompson, chairman of the department of history and politics, Ashland University, Ohio, to the effect that the American Historical Association is rife with secular humanism, anti-Americanism, and sex perverts. According to Thompson, the AHA annual meeting is nothing but a liberal think tank, and its sessions and workshops are all about sex.(74) As a former member and fellow traveler of the AHA I can state unequivocally that these are baseless allegations. A serious look at the program descriptions for recent meetings of the American Historical Association reveals little evidence of a homosexual, sex pervert, anti-Christian agenda.

AHA "2004 Annual Meeting Program"

http://www.theaha.org/annual/2004/2004Program/sessions.htm

3 gay, 1 sex and eugenics, 1 sexual politics, out of 176 sessions and dozens of affiliated history society seminars. Not much sex this year, or any other year.

************************

AHA "2003 Annual Meeting Program"

http://www.theaha.org/annual/2003/03program.htm

7 of 168 seminars plus dozens of affiliated history society seminars had the word "sex" in the title of their discussion. A few were focused on gay history.

*************************

AHA "2002 ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM"

http://www.theaha.org/annual/program/program.html#148

7 of approximately 200 seminars and workshops featured an aspect of human sexuality, and 3 of the seven were also related to gay history.

TOPICAL INDEX of the American Historical Association's 2002 Annual Meeting

http://www.theaha.org/annual/program/Topic.indx.htm

188 topic areas for the AHA Conference, and only two concerned with sex or gay history. Does not add up to a gay agenda.

***********************

"The 114th Annual Meeting of the AHA," 2000.

http://www.theaha.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0003/0003ann1.cfm

Not much sex here, mostly job hunting by 700 unemployed historians.

According to Limbaugh it is persecution of Christians to prohibit government employees from practicing religion in the workplace. It is alright for the governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, to conduct Bible classes in the executive offices of state government. Staffers are free to attend.(155) However, the governor is an employer, a boss, a supervisor, and it would be foolish to assume that employees who didn't attend his Christian religion classes would be on an equal footing with employees who did. Legally they would, but let us be realistic. Who is favored in the eyes of a Christian executive: one who attends his religion classes, or one who shuns them? The godly Christian or the liberal infidel? Besides, it is logical to conclude that there is no limit to this right: that employees must be free to exercise their religion all the time, to read the Bible all day instead of conducting business, or to evangelize non-Christians all day.

According to Limbaugh's concept of the First Amendment, there is no limit on the free exercise clause. In fact, why not have Muslims and Christians, Hindus and Wiccans spend all day everyday at the office arguing the finer points of religion against each other. To forbid this would be religious persecution, according to Limbaugh. The Republican Attorney General of the United States during George II's first term, John Ashcroft, sees nothing illegal or unethical about his own Christian religion classes conducted in the offices of the Justice Department of the United States.(158) Is the religious freedom of non-Christian Americans protected when the highest legal officer in the land is conducting born-again fundamentalist Bible classes in his office? Definitely not. Imagine the outcry from Christians were a different AG to conduct animist classes, or Buddhist rituals in the same office.

It is apparently persecution of Christians to forbid the placement of the Ten Commandments in two or three dimensional form in public schools or on government property. Limbaugh laments the removal of the Ten Commandments megalith from the courthouse of Alabama Supreme Court judge Roy Moore in 2003.(155) The judge was subsequently censured and removed from office for his resolute propagandizing of Christianity on public property, not concerned that doing so violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The monolith was carted away. Yet, there are plenty of Christian judges in America who insist on forcing citizens to obey Christianity by planting the Ten Commandments on public property. Limbaugh happily cites the case of the Capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, where one can still see a monument of the Ten Commandments, left in place after a local judge ruled that the huge block of stone was not religious, it was secular! This judge ruled that the purpose of the block was to promote morality, not a particular religion.(156) There is a certain irony here, that a Christian propaganda monument on public property must be lawful not because it is religious, but because it is secular.

To assume that the Ten Commandments are not religious is to defy reality. Read for yourself the book called Exodus, chapter 20:

20:3 You shall not have other gods besides me.

20:4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

20:5 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;

20:6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.

20:8 "Remember to keep holy the sabbath day.

20:9 Six days you may labor and do all your work,

20:10 but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you.

20:11 In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.

20:13 "You shall not kill.

20:14 "You shall not commit adultery.

20:15 "You shall not steal.

20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."

SOURCE: New American Bible [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Copyright 1991 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC.]

According to Limbaugh, there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with planting these religious commands on government property, and in our public schools. Remember, it is persecution of Christians to remove or prohibit these holy orders, which endorse slavery, forbid statues and graphic images, forbid employment on Sunday, and above all else orders people to worship the Christian god and none other. Again, the Christians assert this is not religious. It is secular. Black is white, and white is black.

Limbaugh further claims it is persecution when government forbids celebration of Christmas and Easter, or any Christian holy day, on government property.(160-66) Monumental Christian crosses must be planted and left on public lands in perpetuity, because after all, Christians must be free to exercise their religion.(166) Christian prayers must be uttered at the start of official business in every legislature in the land. Limbaugh sees nothing wrong with this, other than the fact that government thereby turns an act of state into an act of religion, an ecclesiastical ritual. As for crosses on public property, there is nothing in the Constitution, again according to the logic of Limbaugh, forbidding the President from ordering that a crucifix be placed on all army helmets, jet fighters, and navy ships.

There are other fascinating events and cases of persecution, which Limbaugh uses to prove his case. In Arlington, Texas, a police officer was persecuted because his supervisor told him to remove a crucifix from his uniform. This is persecution because other officers were allowed to keep Mexican flag pins affixed to their uniforms.(179) Perhaps I should state the obvious: a flag is not religion, and Mexico is not a religion, last time I checked. However, a crucifix is a Christian religious symbol and object of worship for Catholics, sanctioned for over a thousand years by the Vatican. When government officials wear the crucifix it is violative of the establishment clause. In some localities it could send a message that only Catholics deserve police protection, and even a plain cross sends the same message: only Christians can expect nondiscriminatory treatment.

Persecution offers the example of the US military censoring non-Muslim items being mailed to servicemen in Muslim countries. On First Amendment grounds I would support the US government telling the Muslim tyrants to get real and learn about freedom, and support the free flow of all literature and media of religious or political nature across international borders. Yet, the Muslims have their own rules. They are not liberals. They are religious. They rule a foreign country. Americans have to follow their rules if the US government has made groveling agreements with them.

Mayor Carolyn Risher, of Inglis, FL, issued city proclamations for nine years in a row banning Satan, declaring that Satan no longer ruled or influenced the citizens.(189) She had to cease this medieval nonsense when ordered by a judge. Limbaugh believes it to be another instance of persecuting the Christians. I wonder how a Christian mayor usurps the authority of her god by banning Satan, and why Risher felt the need to issue this fatwa annually, as if the first incantation was losing effect. The judge was correct. Government has no business propagating religious edicts. Leave that to the local imam or preacher.

Persecution protests the IRS revoking the tax exempt status of Christian organizations which publish partisan political speech, as happened to the Christian Coalition recently.(216) It is also persecution when the IRS tells you that religious orgs cannot deduct from their tax burden the donation of religious literature. Giving a truckload of Christian tracts to another Christian org or anyone else is not tax deductible. The impudence of Christian proselytizers is boundless.

Limbaugh sees persecution as a disease: "The anti-Christian virus has leaped from the government to the private sector, infecting much in its path."(220) Primarily, the symptoms of this liberal virus appear in the media. It has long been a favorite target of the religionists. Proof that Christians are being persecuted: 1) in 2002 a 7-Up soda can featured the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, but left out the phrase "under God" [interesting, but Limbaugh previously wrote that the Pledge was about appreciation for democracy, not religion (59)]; 2) Disney World ended free Christian religious services; 3) Kodak fired a man who objected to toleration for gays in the workplace; 4) Motorola is promoting the homosexual agenda; 5) Sandia National Laboratories banned the practice of naming projects after Bible characters.(226-32)

First, one wonders why it is persecution of Christians when 7-Up prints a non-religious slogan on its cans, like all other soda marketers. Second, Disney World is not obliged by any law to offer free Christian rituals for anyone. Christians at Disney World can pray there all day and recite the Bible while on every ride if they wish, and then leave the complex to attend one of hundreds of Bible churches nearby. Third, the Kodak case was about a worker harassing gay employees, which Kodak could not allow to continue, as harassment is unlawful. Fourth, Motorola is free to hire and retain according to the law, as their website says "...a market-based diversity strategy was developed to enhance Motorola's recruitment and retention of top talent, help identify, target, and capitalize on our key under-represented consumer markets..." That specifically includes blacks, latinos, women, asians, and gays. (See www.motorolacareers.com/moto.cfm?cntry=USADiversity&page=4) Being gay is not unlawful, and recently, the Supreme Court ruled that gay sex is not unlawful. In the high tech industry most of the big corporations have gay employee interest groups. See the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals website at www.noglstp.org/employeegrps.php. This is not the space for extended analysis of gays in the workplace, but I find it encouraging to note that gay employees themselves don't want to spend energy changing religious beliefs of fellow workers, they just want equity. As the LGBTIDWG of Los Alamos National Laboratory (where the US government invents nuclear weapons to defend Christian and non-Christian citizens from foreign aggressors) states: "We believe in changing homophobic and other biased behaviors, not moral or religious beliefs." (www.lanl.gov/orgs/dvo/lgbdwg/templgbcharter.htm)

Fifth, Sandia can name projects any way they wish. As their website states: "Since 1949, Sandia National Laboratories has developed science-based technologies that support our national security....Lockheed Martin manages Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration." (See www.sandia.gov/about/index.html) Those technologies include nuclear weapons. Is it persecution to forbid an H-bomb from being called Jesus, Mary, or Moses? Imagine a future Christian President dropping the Jesus bomb on a Muslim state, and then gleefully proclaiming "We just dropped the Jesus bomb on Damascus." Imagine a nuclear attack submarine being name The Body of Christ. Actually, this happened when a US sub was named Corpus Christi, ostensibly after a Texas city, but the Pentagon backed down under protests from the Vatican.

Alert! Christian foster parents in California are being persecuted because the state government wants them to sign up for a course on how to prevent discrimination of the gay children they might have in their care. These Christians feel under siege because they can't beat their foster children or condemn their gay lifestyle.(238-39) Hate crime legislation is persecuting the Christians, because they fear that speaking their minds about the evils of homosexuality will get them in trouble with the authorities.(248) I have not heard of one single Christian jailed for condemning the gay lifestyle.

Did you know that "elite culture" persecutes Christians because it supports the photos of Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano? Limbaugh writes that the liberal NEA funds depraved art, ipso facto anti-Christian. Scandalous plays are performed in New York and religion is mocked. Attacks on Christianity are often by "homosexual forces".(259-61) Can you detect a pattern here? Christians don't just feel persecuted, they are actually, factually, persecuted. However, one must note that the Christian side has shown no bodies of martyrs, no prisons groaning with captive Christians, not one Christian barred from work due solely on the basis of religion. Limbaugh at last exposes his chief culprit, which goes by various terms: homosexual forces, liberals, elite culture, secular humanists. Doesn't name names, just ascribes persecution to these hidden forces. Limbaugh thus falls prey to the Devil Theory of history: the notion that bad things are happening, and the Devil is behind it. The difficulty about this theory is that it is impossible to prove or disprove. It is just as valid as the idea that everything happens according to God's Plan. I submit to you that the Limbaugh argument is not with liberals, it is with the "world" and "worldliness", the enemies of the godly. His argument is fundamentally theological, and outside the realm of secular discourse, but he will not come out and say it, preferring to hide behind the secular mask of a persecution theory.

We are told that in 2001 the Christians of Fort Wayne sued Indiana University to stop the production of a play called Corpus Christi, on grounds that the government was supporting anti-religion. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their case and allowed the play to continue.(262) For Limbaugh, this has persecution written all over it. He pleads for religious freedom, but seeks to deny it to others, agreeing with the plaintiffs that anti-religion must be stifled by the state. What is really at stake is the First Amendment right to free speech.

Ted Turner, former CEO of CNN, comes in for special censure by Limbaugh. Turner once made a speech at the United Nations, to which he donated one billion dollars, advocating peace, love, respect, and toleration. Limbaugh derides this speech as "blasphemy".(269) In the old days blasphemy was a capital offense. The religious crime is one in which a person denies or speaks ill of the Christian god. One must assume that what Limbaugh really objects to is liberal toleration.

Persecution asks whether you noticed during each Christmas that the media run stories which seek to discredit Bible truth?(271) No, I have not. Limbaugh protests that the media show little interest or TV coverage of anti-abortion demonstrations.(275) Perhaps because most Americans are not interested in these demos. The media show little interest when Christians are massacred by Muslims in foreign lands.(275) I would need to see the incidents before making a sweeping judgment, but this is the one point I can agree on with Limbaugh, not because it demonstrates American media persecution of Christians, but because human rights are being violated and the media are failing to report it. I wonder if Muslims are being massacred by Christians in foreign lands. People in Iraq and Afghanistan could make that case.

Limbaugh and the Traditional Values Coalition maintain that NPR is part of the liberal secular humanist conspiracy to destroy Christianity.(281) According to NPR's website, www.npr.org, the news organization has done at least 350 stories about anthrax terrorism, and only one which refers to TVC. On 22 Jan. 2002 NPR aired a story in which reporter David Kestenbaum said TVC attacked Democratic senators Daschle and Leahy for their lack of support for forcing witnesses to swear an oath to the Christian god. The segment transcript clearly shows that Kestenbaum did not say TVC was behind the anthrax scare, or that it was a suspect in the FBI investigation. Neither did he question the religious beliefs of TVC. He interviewed FBI agents who explained their technique of "victimology", to ascertain the enemies of victims such as Sen. Daschle, who had anthrax letters mailed to his office. The FBI takes a look at every possible clue, including letters and literature that could in any way be perceived as an attack or threat. TVC had attacked the senator in print. Kestenbaum mentioned that. For this, the TVC threatened a civil suit. I don't know what became of that threat, but the NPR website no longer has that story online. In its place is a set of apologies to TVC, although neither NPR or Kestenbaum said TVC was a suspect or a perpetrator. See the NPR transcript, if it is not a doctored version, at http://traditionalvalues.org/anthrax3.php.

PBS also gets the Limbaugh Persecution treatment. This TV network is a favorite straw man for the Bible Christians. Although only 10% of its budget is from the feds, Bible Christians carry on as though PBS was wholly funded by the taxpayer. Limbaugh asserts that PBS is persecuting Christians because it aired a show on Mohammed, and another on evolution.(283) Further, NOW with Bill Moyers is singled out as anti-Christian for reasons not easy to fathom. It is difficult to understand how fulfilling its mandate to broadcast educational content makes PBS anti-Christian. The purely Christian TV networks are free to produce and air hateful anti-secular programs, and show viewers all the creationist programs they wish. PBS has a higher standard: sourced and scientific.

A review of NOW with Bill Moyers reveals Limbaugh's charge as baseless. Since the weekly show's inception in late 2001 to the publication of Persecution in say mid-2003, there have been five episodes entirely or partly concerned with Christian related topics. Not much is it? You can read them at www.pbs.org. One show, "Sins of the faith," 3 Jan. 2003, featured a roundtable discussion of democracy and religion in America in light of the terror of 9-11. Only one pundit declared himself agnostic, and opposed to religious fanaticism. The bigoted statements of certain Christians introduced the discussion, views which Limbaugh would doubtless agree with. The Reverend Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, said "The God of Islam is not the same God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different god, and I believe it is a very evil and very wicked religion." The former president of the Southern Baptists, Jerry Vines, said "Islam was founded by…a demon-possessed pedophile." Tom DeLay said "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world - only Christianity." The Reverend Jerry Falwell said "I think Mohammed was a terrorist." Does Limbaugh disagree with these views and still call himself a true Christian? How is asserting the truth of Christianity over Islam an example of persecuting Christians?

Next up, "What role should religion play in politics?" 1 March 2002. Moyers began by asking if George Bush and John Ashcroft were breaking down the wall between church and state in fighting the war on terror. Ashcroft was quoted: "Unique among the nations," he said, "America recognized the source of our character as being Godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus." Ashcroft expanded, "Civilized individuals, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the creator. Governments may guard freedom. Governments don't grant freedom." Bush was quoted as saying "95% of Americans say they believe in God, and I'm one of them." Limbaugh agrees with all of these comments, so why does he think NOW with Bill Moyers is thus persecuting Christians? It boggles the mind. Karen Armstrong commented that "Every fundamentalist movement I've studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion. Wants to wipe them out....After the Scopes Trial [1925], after the ridicule, they swung to the extreme right, and there they've remained." A good assessment of Limbaugh too.

The show of 2 August 2002 had a segment on Catholic Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, whose task was to save the church from child molesting priests. Then a show on 16 May 2003 featured a segment on Elaine Pagels and the secret Gospel of Thomas. A show on 26 September 2003 featured a segment on the Bush regime's "faith-based initiative". In Colorado Springs, one such program is called Faith Partners. They are not supposed to proselytize, but here is what they do: "The first step is to love them and to care for them...And that takes a few months....And then the next phase is inviting them to explore the contents of the faith in God through Jesus Christ, which is the Christian faith...I think it's somewhere in the 85 percent range that come to some relationship with God through Christ as a consequence of our participation with them." What on earth is Limbaugh complaining about? This PBS show is persecuting Christians? Limbaugh needs to do much better research than this.

At last we are at Part Three of Persecution, in which Limbaugh asserts "The purpose of this chapter is to set the historical record straight."(297) The cat is out of the bag, and Limbaugh claims that American freedom comes from Christianity.(299) The Founders were Bible Christians.(300) It is important to note what Limbaugh leaves out. He makes no distinction between reasons for establishing colonies in North America, and establishing the United States of America. He assumes that both colonies and the new nation were founded for the same reason, for Bible Christian reasons. This is preposterous. Business and mercantile interests built every colony, including Puritan Massachusetts, from the slave-run cotton and tobacco plantations of the South to the ship building and gun manufacturing cities of the North. There was a strong religious component to some colonial foundings, but to assume all the colonists from 1607 to 1776 were fired with holy zeal for Christ is absurd.

Persecution takes note of the Pilgrims of 1620, who fled England to practice their religion in tolerant Holland. They had toleration but not perfect autonomy.(301) Thus, Limbaugh admits that the mother country, England (which Christians cite as the birthplace of Christian common law), had less religious freedom than Holland, a nation based on Roman civil law. And what was it that so upset the Pilgrims and Puritans about mother England? It had an established religion they disapproved of: it was deemed too much like the Church of Rome. The ironies for Limbaugh must be painful. Puritans and Pilgrims felt they had to leave England because it had an established church that would not reinvent itself on Bible Christian lines, so they left. But an established Christian church is what Limbaugh and the American Christians want for the United States. Also, we have seen already the hatred that Christians have for the liberal idea of toleration. Holland had toleration, but the Christians eagerly accepted refuge from the foreigner, swallowing their godly hatred of toleration.

Puritans settled their Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1620s, leaving England for various reasons, but Limbaugh focuses on the religious aspect as if that was all that mattered. He maintains that the Puritans built self-government on Christian ideas, and that these ideas became the basis for the US Constitution of 1787.(303) By 1776 and the Declaration of Independence, 75% of colonists were Puritan, and the rest were Calvinist. The imputation here is that all American colonists were Bible Christians, as there is no theological difference between Puritans and Calvinists. (305-306) Nine of the first thirteen states adopted Christianity as the established religion.(306)

Before I get to Limbaugh's assertions about the US Constitution, it is necessary to briefly explore his above claims about the role of Puritans in colonial America. He leaves out the non-Puritan roots of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and every single one of the southern colonies, including the mother of presidents, Virginia. Limbaugh also omits any reference to dozens of innocent people who were executed by the Puritans for not conforming to the Puritan Bible religion, including Quakers and victims of the witch hunts in Salem.

What follows is a list of colonial and state laws pertaining to religion, showing that the foundation of most colonies was narrow-minded, bigoted, and discriminatory against non-Christians, and often against Christians who did not measure up to the ruling Christian sect. I ask the reader to think about living under the Bible Christian colonial governments, and whether the reader would prefer them to the tolerant non-religious state governments that succeeded them. The following laws are no different in intent than the Spanish imperial instruments of colonial rule in South America which decreed that all native peoples be forced to convert to Roman Catholicism.

1641--Body of Liberties guaranteed due process of law for all citizens. Freedom of religious practice was guaranteed for all Congregationalists. If one was a Congregationalist then one was a citizen with full rights, a freeman. Non-Congregationalists had no rights under the law.

1656--General Court legislated that Quakers coming to Boston must be arrested, jailed, and whipped. Quakerism was also punished with banishment.

1657--General Court legislated that Quakers resisting banishment were to be punished with the cutting off of their ears, or boring holes in their tongues with red hot irons. Cruel and unusual punishments had been banned in the Body of Liberties. However, cruelty is a subjective term.

1658--the death penalty was introduced against Quakers who rejected banishment. A total of four Quakers were executed under this law.

1661--Charles II ordered the cessation of capital punishment and corporal punishment for the crime of being a Quaker. The General Court abolished the death penalty, but continued to allow corporeal punishments.

1662--the Cart and Whip Act ordered Quakers to be dragged behind ox carts and whipped from town to town.

1677--last recorded execution of whipping of a Quaker.

1668--Baptists, who had on several occasions been fined, jailed, and whipped for being Baptists, were officially banished from Boston.

1685--Governor Andros proclaimed freedom of worship for Episcopalians.

1691--William III issued a new charter for Massachusetts, which merged Plymouth colony into the Bay colony. Religious restrictions on the right to vote were abolished. Freedom of public worship was allowed for all sects, not including Catholics. All citizens were ordered to pay taxes to support the established church, just as they had been required to do since the founding of the colony in 1631. The Congregational church was the church of the establishment.

1692--Salem witchcraft trials. Over one hundred fifty persons jailed awaiting trial. Four died in prison. Fourteen women and five men were found guilty of witchcraft and executed by hanging. One man was executed by being crushed to death under large rocks. Before 1692 there had been 44 cases of witchcraft and three hangings in the Bay colony.

1727--Episcopalians allowed to tax themselves for the support of their own ministers.

1728--Baptists allowed to tax themselves for the support of their own ministers.

1731--Quakers were allowed to cease paying taxes in support of the established church, because they opposed a paid ministry.

1780--Article III of the new state constitution stated that the Congregational church was to continue receiving tax support, with the exception of townships that preferred to pay taxes in support of some other denomination. All citizens were ordered to attend public worship on Sunday. All Christians were to have equal protection under the law.

1833--the new state constitution disestablished the Congregational Church.

1638--New Haven founded. All civil law was based on the Bible. Trial by jury was forbidden on the grounds that it was not found in the laws of Moses. Any crime deserving of the death penalty in ancient Israel was likewise treated in the New Haven criminal code. The status of freeman was given to Congregational church members only.

1658--laws against Quakers passed in New Haven, as severe as those in Massachusetts, without the death penalty.

1665--New Haven and Connecticut merged into one colony.

1688--Connecticut founded. Congregational church established as the state church. Civil laws based on the Bible. Voting open to all citizens, except Quakers.

1702--legislature passed law requiring all citizens to attend public worship on Sunday. Reinforced in acts of 1721, 1750, and 1770.

1743--Catholics and Moravians prohibited from public worship and preaching.

1784--all citizens required to pay for the minister of their choice. NonProtestants were fined for not attending Protestant services on Sunday.

1816--repeal of compulsory church attendance law.

1818--new state constitution disestablished the Congregational church.

1639--founding of the colony. Civil government established in the name of Jesus Christ to do the will of God, through Christian laws. The Congregational church was established as the state church. and all citizens were required to pay taxes in support of the clergy. Civil liberties were denied to Jews, Catholics, and infidels.

1641 to 1679--union with Massachusetts.

1680--first New Hampshire colonial assembly decreed that only Protestants could become freemen. Refusal to pay taxes for the support of the state church was punished by fines and imprisonment. Contempt of God's word was punished by fine or imprisonment. Contempt for the Congregational clergy was also punished by fines and imprisonment.

1817--freedom of public worship granted to all Christians.

1889--revised state constitution continued to give protection of the law to Protestants only.

1638--colony established. Civil laws based on the Bible.

1663--a new charter from Charles II allowed freedom of public worship for all Christians. There was no state church. Catholics were excluded from public office from 1719 to 1783. Citizens were not bound by the law to attend divine service on Sundays.

1665--the English conquered New Amsterdam, which had been under Dutch control, and under the established church, the Dutch Reformed Church. Under the Dutch, religious toleration was denied to Jews, Quakers and Lutherans. The Duke's Laws of 1665 allowed freedom of public worship for all Christians.

1693--Episcopal church established as the state church. All citizens had to pay taxes to support the Episcopalian clergy. Catholics denied toleration.

1744--an act of the colonial assembly prohibited preaching by Moravians or Catholics without a government license. Apparently this was not enforced.

1777--new state constitution allowed freedom of worship for all sects.

1784--Episcopal establishment completely abolished. Catholics were denied the franchise.

1668--first colonial assembly based its laws on the Puritan code of New Ark (Newark). Under pressure from new settlers of Presbyterian and Quaker background, the proprietors of the colony ordered toleration for Christians.

1702--East and West Jersey merged to form New Jersey. East Jersey had enacted legislation in 1698 that denied the right of public worship to Catholics and everyone else who did not believe in Jesus Christ.

1776--state legislature adopted a bill of rights granting freedom of religion to all Protestants.

1682--William Penn's Frame of Government gave the right of holding office to those who believed that Jesus Christ was their savior. Freedom of worship was given to everyone who believed in God. The first Pennsylvania assembly granted civil liberties to Christians only; all citizens were ordered to either read the Bible or attend public worship on Sundays, in order to counter irreligion and atheism; all office holders were required to publicly declare and profess faith in Jesus Christ; all voters were required to profess and publicly declare faith in Jesus Christ.

1693--an oath of office was introduced which excluded Catholics and Jews from office. Unitarians were also denied office.

1700--the assembly made blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible a criminal act punishable by fine and imprisonment.

1701--Charter of Privileges gave religious freedom to those who professed a belief in God. A belief in salvation through Jesus Christ was required of all office holders.

1776--new state constitution denied civil rights to atheists and agnostics. An oath for office holders required belief in one god, heaven, hell and the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.

1790--the religious test for office holding was abolished. Religious toleration was granted to those who professed belief in one god, heaven, and hell. The blasphemy law was never repealed.

1704--gained semi-autonomy from parent colony of Pennsylvania. Belief in Jesus Christ was required of all office holders and voters.

1776--gained statehood. New state constitution granted civil rights to Christians only, and an oath of office required belief in Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the divine inspiration of the Bible.

1831--repealed oaths for office requiring belief in the Trinity.

1634--Lord Baltimore established Maryland as a haven for Catholics and Protestants alike.

1649--Death penalty invoked for failure of persons believing in the Trinity, or for the crime of blasphemy. Non-Christians were to be executed. Those who believed in Jesus Christ were given freedom of public worship.

1650s--Catholics deprived of the franchise and all civil rights.

1689--following Coode's Rebellion, Catholics were disfranchised and denied the right to hold public office, which had been restored to them in 1661.

1692--the English oath of office was required of all office holders, which deprived Catholics, Jews, Unitarians, and atheists from public service.

1700--Episcopal church established. Book of Common Prayer required to be used in all Christian churches. This law was disallowed by the Privy Council in England.

1702--Privy Council ordered that the Episcopal church be established. Quakers were allowed to affirm instead of being required to swear an oath.

1704--Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery prohibited Catholic public worship, and forbade priests from attempting to convert anyone, or to baptize non-Catholic children. Catholics were allowed to worship in their homes only.

1718--Catholics disfranchised.

1777--state bill of rights guaranteed freedom of public worship to all Christians. Office holding was allowed to all Christians. The Episcopal church was disestablished. The legislature reserved the right to levy a general tax in support of Christianity, leaving the individual citizen the choice as to which church he wanted the tax to go. If the citizen chose no church, then the tax money would go to the poor of the community.

1624--Episcopal church established. No toleration for Quakers.

1760s to 1770s--Baptist preachers jailed for disturbing the peace.

1776--Article 16 granted religious freedom, but required all citizens to follow Christian morality. Article 16 was part of the first state Declaration of Rights.

1785--Episcopal vestries deprived of all secular authority and responsibility.

1786--Act for Establishing Religious Freedom passed into law. No man was to be forced to attend or pay for the support of any religion or place of worship. Complete freedom of religious belief was permitted. No religious tests for office were required. Voting was not to be denied on the basis of religious belief. The Episcopal church was disestablished. However, a Sunday observance law was retained.

1787--the legislature repealed the incorporation of the Episcopal church, putting it on the same legal footing as the Baptists and Presbyterians, free to govern their church without reference to the legislature.

1665--the charter granted by Charles II to the proprietors gave religious freedom to Christians only, and the Episcopal church was established. The Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas prohibited atheism and non-religion. Jews and Indians were to be tolerated, but persuaded to convert to Christianity. Dissenting sects were required to believe in one god, to be publicly worshipped by kissing a Bible.

1696--Catholics were disfranchised and forbidden public worship.

1704--Episcopal church established by law, and non-Episcopalians were disfranchised.

1706--non-Anglicans allowed the right to vote.

1720--Carolinas divided into North and South.

1776--new state constitution of North Carolina disestablished the Episcopal church. Office holding was denied to persons who failed to believe in one god, the Protestant religion, and the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments.

1778--South Carolina state constitution prohibited clergymen from holding the governorship, councilship, or place in the state legislature. Civil rights were accorded only to those persons who believed in one god, heaven and hell, and in the public worship of God. The state formally approved and recognized only the Protestant religion. Citizens were not taxed for the support of Protestantism.

1790--a new constitution abolished the 1778 establishment of Protestantism, Catholics were enfranchised, but clergymen were prohibited from holding office. (For South Carolina only.)

1732--royal charter granted freedom of public worship to all religions except Catholicism. Quakers were allowed to affirm instead of swear an oath.

1752--a new charter established the Episcopal church.

1777--new state constitution required all legislators to be Protestants.

1785--legislature passed a law demanding taxation for the support of Christianity, but the law was later struck down as unconstitutional

Limbaugh asserts that Founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson supported the Bible Christian plan for a Christian America. Madison, a Bible Christian apparently, received some training by the Rev. John Witherspoon, who said "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."(315) Proof of the bigoted teachers of the founders? Thankfully, Madison did not put his alleged mentor's ideals into law. In fact, Madison had little time for forcing Christianity down the throats of American citizens. Well before 1787, he protested that "...the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects..." (A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785) Madison was also adamant that the government had no business funding religion, in complete contradistinction to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush with their "faith-based initiative". (veto message, February 28, 1811, in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, (1908), p. 133.)

As for Thomas Jefferson, Limbaugh is simply incorrect. Jefferson was not a Bible Christian, and he had no use for state religion. "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." (Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787) When working on the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, Jefferson prevailed upon his colleagues to leave out any reference to Jesus Christ. Also, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." ( letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802) Contradicting Limbaugh's belief, Jefferson wrote that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814) Finally, he also had this to say about religious leaders: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." (letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814) Jefferson would not have entertained the Christian Coalition or Traditional Values Coalition at the White House.

Religious monopolists have always preached that the state needs religion to prop it up, and that religion needs the support of the state to prop it up among the people, but American history has shown that concept to be baseless and false. We have no established religion in America, and by all accounts religion thrives, as the Christians keep telling us. Founders such as Jefferson and Madison thought religion was a matter of conscience, not of state coercion. Limbaugh and his camp wish to abolish that Enlightenment concept and replace it with a legal system based on the Bible, so gays and liberals can be punished.

Limbaugh claims that since man is created in the image of God, he has inalienable rights and freedoms.(316) Due to the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, humans are evil. That is why the Founders adopted the rule of law. Checks and balances for government are based on the Bible, and on the belief that God is more powerful than humans. The Founders "knew" that any constitution is useless without citizens who believed in Bible Christianity.(318-20)

Freedom derives from the Bible? The Christian Bible endorses both slavery and polygamy, concubinage, and massacre of non-believers. I suggest that Christians read carefully the Old Testament. I suggest that non-Christians read the Old Testament as well, to see what Limbaugh has in store for them.

In response to Limbaugh's unhistorical analysis, it should be noted that the model for American government was not the Bible. If so, then the Founders might have established a hereditary monarchy, and a national religion with government priests, as ancient Israel had done. The Hebrews had their kings, such as Solomon and David. They had an official temple religion with an official priest class. Kings were accountable to nobody, free to send commanders on suicide missions in order to seduce their wives. Democracy was unheard of, and totally alien to the ideal of government at that time, which was based on an imitation of divine rule, in which a divine being ruled directly, without popular assent or consultation. This was a common model of government throughout the ancient world. It was certainly not republican. The Founders had other models based on Bible stories, but rejected them as well. In the Old Testament, the government of the Hebrews at the time of Exodus was hardly monarchical, it was tribal and chief driven. In the New Testament the government was Roman, with absolute power invested in an emperor, the Caesar, who was not hereditary. The method of succession in ancient imperial Rome was via assassination. None of these systems was acceptable to men like Jefferson, Madison, and Adams.

The Founders adopted the English parliamentary system, replacing the hereditary king with an elected President, as a balance to the representative body (Congress), and to the judiciary (Supreme Court). The notion of a balanced constitutional system had been worked out in the 17th century, and settled in 1688 with England's "Glorious Revolution", when the English ruling class ejected King James II, who imagined himself a divine right monarch free to rule without the consent of the governed, and replaced him with William III, a Dutchman, who agreed to rule only with the consent of parliament. In fact, it was the end of monarchical rule. Under the unwritten constitution of England, the executive branch of government resolved to the office of Prime Minister, who was yet part of parliament. The American Founders rebelled against English rule in 1776 not for religion, but for hatred of being taxed without representation. They wanted to be treated as equal to English subjects, not as colonial second class citizens. The Founders saw a flaw in the English parliamentary system, with the executive branch too closely aligned with the representative branch, and decided on additional checks to prevent one branch from arrogating too much power to itself. Thus the system of President, Congress, and Supreme Court.

One must therefore reject the Limbaugh notion that checks and balances, and concepts of freedom derive from the Bible. Under the American system, sovereignty comes from the will of the people, not from the will of the Christian God, or from Jesus. Neither does sovereignty derive from the President or king or executive. Ultimately, the sovereign power of the United States comes from the people, as the Founders intended. Limbaugh and Bible Christian radicals wish to turn back the clock to a time that never existed, when sovereignty came from the will of God, interpreted by Bible Christian ecclesiasts such as Limbaugh. That is their notion of original intent.

Persecution alleges the Founders of 1787 intended to promote Christianity and allowed states to establish official religions. Later, the Supreme Court incorrectly destroyed that concept.(324-25) The year 1940 is a sad year for Christians, according to Limbaugh, because the Supreme Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut held that the First Amendment must be applied equally to all states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By this time there was not even the slightest chance of any state establishing an official religion, but Cantwell shut the door on the issue seemingly forever.

What Limbaugh proposes is a return to "original intent". Thus we are instructed to follow slavishly the beliefs of generations ago, as if 1787 was today, when states could and did establish official religions supported by taxpayers, and had the legal power to exclude non-Christians from government office. Limbaugh does not mention that the Founders of 1787 also denied the vote to women, men who had no real estate, blacks, and members of the aboriginal nations (Indians). Limbaugh does not mention that slavery was protected in the law and was perfectly constitutional at that time. In fact, a black man was counted as only 3/5 of a white man for congressional districting purposes.

Why didn't the Founders mention Jesus, or any other Bible character, at least once in any of the founding instruments, or quote at least one solitary line directly from the Bible?

Mercifully, Limbaugh finally concluded his Persecution with select quotes from fellow do-it-yourself Christian leaders to prove persecution and group his thesis with the ideas of more widely recognized Bible Christian writers.

Michael Novak: The 18th century Enlightenment is pure bigotry, because it equates Light with secularism, Darkness with Christianity.(331) But what do the Christians call non-Christians? All manner of pejoratives, but Novak and his camp feel it is permitted them to call the kettle black. Jefferson and many Founders were attracted to the Enlightenment ideal of freedom of conscience, freedom from religious superstition. They saw dangers in people readily swayed by religious fears, easily manipulated by fear mongers, such as clergymen and politicians pretending to be religious. Christians have much trouble with freedom of conscience, because it leads to toleration.

James Dobson: Conservative Christians and fundamentalist Muslims promote traditional values. Leftists who preach toleration are judgmental, but Christians who oppose the homosexual agenda are not judgmental.(330) Here is an odd couple: Bible Christians and Muslims. Those who believe that Jesus is a god, and Muslims who reject that belief. Dobson is correct on one point: both groups hate homosexuality and have no use for toleration, not just for gays, but for anyone who fails to believe as they believe. For the true religionist, toleration is evil, and everyone must be forced by the state to believe in a uniform religion.

D. James Kennedy: Soon enough the American majority will be Christian.(349) Those who reject moral absolutes are atheistical sinners. God is the ultimate absolute. Toleration is therefore a symptom of a degenerate society.(334-35) One might wonder why Kennedy would assert that America is not already Christian. That is because his brand of Bible Christianity is not universally recognized by all Christians as truly Christian. And Kennedy certainly does not believe that Christians outside the Bible Christian born-againer evangelical fundamentalist camp are really Christians. This is the chief difficulty with Christianity: it breeds schism, and has done so for 2,000 years. In a sense, the Christians have been ingenious at persecuting each other for centuries. Bible Christians clearly have no use for toleration. They seek to violate a moral absolute that says the state has no business dictating religion to the people.

Marvin Olasky: "I don't see Christians as being singled out for discrimination in American society...," but they are ridiculed in the media and academe.(333) A curious counterpoint to Limbaugh by one of his intellectual mentors, denying the very thesis of Persecution.

Let me conclude with an assessment of the Limbaugh thesis. His Persecution is based on the thesis that liberals are persecuting Christians, and that straying from constitutional "original intent" has undermined freedom and taken us from the path of established Christian religion.(xiii) From all of the examples above it looks like Christians are being persecuted because they are not allowed to be intolerant of others. The fetish of Original Intent is often referred to as the reason why Christians have a right to be intolerant. They simply wish to turn back the clock to a better time when the government established an official religion, supported by the taxpayers regardless of religious affiliation. Jews, non-Christians, Infidels, and Christians not favored by the government had to support an alien religion. The reality of religious diversity in the rapidly growing republic, coupled with the Founder's refusal to establish a religion, had the salutary effect of negating attempts on the state level to dictate religion.

Where is the persecution? Where are the victims? Limbaugh will have to do much better than this poorly researched book to convince people that Bible Christians are being persecuted. I have used the term Bible Christian to set them apart from people that the Limbaugh camp would never recognize as Christians, such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and certainly not Unitarians. Americans who seriously want their children educated in a religious school have plenty of options. Catholics have 8,000 parochial schools to choose from. Likewise, Bible Christians have thousands of private Bible Christians academies to attend. If children are to be indoctrinated in religion at public school, then which one will it be? The suggestion is ludicrous.

Limbaugh's exploration of persecuted Christians in the private sector and in the mass media is a bit shallow. His examples, noted above, are laughable. What is not humorous is the lamentable use of the word "persecution" to describe the Bible Christian frustration of living with a tolerant culture. History can furnish many examples of people being persecuted: 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazi regime in the 1940s; 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Turk, 1915-18; 2,700 civilians of all nations and religions being murdered by Muslims on 9-11-2001; Jews and Muslims being massacred by Catholics in the Holy Land in the 11th century; Christians being massacred in Japan in the 17th century; animists being massacred by Muslims in Sudan today; blacks being denied self-determination during the Apartheid regime in South Africa; Africans being sold into slavery from time immemorial to the present; Falun Gong being jailed and murdered by the Chinese communists today; Tibetans having their homeland stolen from them and repopulated with ethnic Chinese since 1949; East Timorese being massacred by Muslims in the 1980s; Palestinians expelled from their homes and denied self-determination since 1948. I don't have room for a complete list, but you get the message. You can find a comprehensive list of persecution at Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org).

Finally, a technical question. What is a liberal? Limbaugh does not define it. He assumes it. In a sense the word "liberal" becomes anything hateful to the Bible Christian cause. Neither does Limbaugh define Christian. I have. Now I will define liberal: the idea that people should be protected from the powerful. Liberal has related meanings, such as diverse (a liberal education), fair (a liberal constitution), and free (a liberal society). America needs a liberal dose of liberalism, not a return to a fantasy land of ecclesiastical tyranny.

And now for a healthy antidote to Limbaugh's anti-pluralism. I recommend reading William R. Hutchinson's Religious Pluralism in America (2003). He defines pluralism in religion as the acceptance of diversity, and sees the dominant trend in America as participatory pluralism, which means a mandate for all religious and non-religious people to share and shape the American agenda. Religious diversity existed in the new American Republic, at least in the early 19th century, but pluralism only happened in the late 20th century. The American idea of religious freedom has broadened since 1776 from mere toleration, to inclusion, to participatory pluralism. Pluralism is now evident in civil rights law, and conservatives hate it.

There are conservatives who will not accept pluralism. The anti-pluralists will always be concerned about what the pluralists are doing to "our" country, the White Anglo Saxon Protestant America of holy memory. Nativist and anti-pluralist individuals want an America with only one mindset, one truth, one religion. It is impossible for Bible Christians to accept equality, because they believe that all other religions are of the Devil, including certain brands of Christianity. (Hutchinson, pp. 10, 219-20)

Anti-pluralists like to take refuge in "original intent", the concept that it is god's will that America be a Protestant nation. They forget that the righteous Christian founders also abused the Indians and legalized slavery. They also fail to notice that the idea of chosen-ness died with Jesus on the Cross. To represent America as "chosen" is idolatrous. Institutions of government are human things and cannot be the embodiment of ultimate religious truth, because there is no god outside of God, no god but God. Government is less than perfect, while God is perfect and absolute. Government cannot be anything other than apart from God. (Hutchinson, pp. 228, 236)

Limbaugh is part of the conservative anti-pluralist movement. It is a movement that Americans should not accept. Bible Christians want to reverse time and go back to an era of religious bigotry, exclusion, and tyranny. Conservatives always suspect hidden enemies. Limbaugh calls them homosexual forces, liberals, elite culture, secular humanists, etc. Bible Christians have a plan for these enemies which would wipe away two hundred years of liberal democratic progress and install an ecclesiastical despotism onerous and inimical to basic human rights.

*SOURCES on State Religions and Discrimination

Massachusetts: Cobb, Sanford Hoadley. (Rev.) The Rise of Religious Liberty in America: A History. New York, 1902; reprint, 1970; pp. 228-9, 234-5,232-35, 500; Rutland, Robert Allen. The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791. Chapel Hill: UNCP, 1955; pp. 15, 69-73; Curry, Thomas J. The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. OUP, 1986; pp. 4,17, 13, 24, 25; Samuel Elliot Morison, Oxford History of the American People, 124-5.

Connecticut: Cobb; 281-84, 286-87, 243-44, 255-56, 276-77, 501, 513. Curry; 4. Rutland; 90.

New Hampshire: Cobb; 291-94, 299, 516-17; Rutland; 20, 75.

Rhode Island: Cobb; 428-34; Rutland, 17; Curry; 21, 23.

New York: Cobb; 358, 502. Curry; 62-64. Rutland; 21, 62-63.

New Jersey: Cobb; 399-402, 405, 415, 503. Rutland; 43.

Pennsylvania: Cobb; 442-45, 449-50, 483, 515-16, 503. Rutland; 20, 22.

Delaware: Cobb; 453, 503, 517. Rutland; 55, 56.

Virginia: Cobb; 112-13. Rutland; 85-87. Curry; 29-30. Buckley, Thomas E. Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia, 1776-1787. UP of VA, 1977;47-48, 161-62, 163-64, 170, 173, 174, 175-79, 181-82.

Maryland: Cobb; 397, 504. Curry; 34-37, 39-40, 42, 44, 47-48, 49, 51-52. Rutland; 51-52.

The Carolinas: Cobb; 117, 120-21, 124-25, 128, 504-7, 517. Curry; 56, 59, 61. Rutland; 57-60, 65.

Georgia: Cobb; 419-21, 507. Rutland; 61.

________________

Copyright 2004 by Frank Wallis. All rights reserved.

www.powerskeptic.net/persecu.htm