Columns Home

   Filoiann Wiedenhoff
   Frederick Meekins
   J. Matt Barber
   John Dillard
   Marsha Jordan
   Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
   Rev. Austin Miles
   Guest Writers

   Christian Living
   Social Issues

Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
 You're here » Christian Columns Index » Reed R. Heustis, Jr. » One Nation Under Fill-in-the-Blank
One Nation Under Fill-in-the-Blank
by Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
August 5, 2007
Category: Political
AMIDST CONSTANT ongoing efforts to erase all mentions of God from our national and public life, conservative do-gooders stand up to defend acknowledgements of God wherever and whenever they can.

When liberal secularists seek to kick God and the Ten Commandments out of the public schools, Conservatives are given a soapbox on which they can "preach" the virtues of God and education.

When liberal secularists seek to erase God from our paper dollars and coins, again Conservatives rise up and boisterously defend the notion of "In God We Trust."

It seems that whenever liberal secularists attack the idea of God and country, Conservatives will always be there, pandering to Christian voters.

But exactly who is this "God?" Conservatives never seem to have the guts to proclaim His Name.

Earlier this year, Democrat Keith Ellison from Minnesota, took his Oath of Office after being elected as a United States Congressman to the House of Representatives. Ellison became the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.

According to the Congressional Record of February 16, 2007, Ellison took the following Oath as required by the United States Constitution and Title V of the U.S. Code, Section 3331:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." [emphasis added]

As a Muslim, Ellison rejects the Kingship of Jesus Christ over the affairs of men. Yet, that did not stop Ellison from taking the Oath that ends with, "So help me God."

Have Conservatives pointed out publicly that Ellison's "god" is Allah, not Christ?

Conservatives do not seem to care about this. They seem more concerned with upholding a generic mention of "god" rather than a specific acknowledgement of King Jesus Christ. To most Conservatives, it matters not to which "god" a non-Christian politician bows down, just so long as we maintain a one-size-fits-all "god" in our public national life.

This pervasive surrender to the gods of Pluralism continue to bear its deadly fruits, as more history was made on Thursday, July 12, 2007, when a Hindu clergyman, Rajan Zed, offered the United States Senate's morning prayer. In so doing, Zed became the first Hindu to perform the feat. Instead of praying to the one true Trinitarian God of Holy Scripture, which necessarily includes our King Jesus Christ, Zed offered his prayer to his false god:

"We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds." [emphasis added]

A few Conservatives put up a front of public disapproval; however, once again, even these seemed to defend only the mention of a mere "monotheistic" god, instead of specifically identifying God as that described in Holy Scripture.

While even historian and author David Barton of Wallbuilders rightfully criticized the Hindu prayer, he only did so on the basis that it was offered to a non-monotheistic god. This begs the question, Why did Barton choose not to criticize the prayer on the basis that it was offered to a false god?

Just because a god is "monotheistic" does not mean that it is the true God of Holy Scripture. Logically, if the only problem with the Hindu prayer is that it was offered to a non-monotheistic god, then any prayer offered to the monotheistic Allah would be acceptable. This logic rolls out the red carpet for anti-Christ Muslims and any other worshipper of a make-believe monotheistic deity.

Even a worshipper of a head of lettuce now is welcome to offer his vegan prayer on Capitol Hill.

Such an understanding of the relationship between God and government is dreadfully anti-Christian to the core, and just screams for God's vengeance.

Today, Conservatives love to jump on their moral high horse by defending a generic one-size-fits-all "god." They are quick to rise to their feet at sporting events to sing, "God bless America." They are the first to stand at attention, placing their hands upon their hearts, to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance." They are the most vocal about keeping "In God We Trust" inscribed on our money. Somehow this gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling that they are being both religious and patriotic.

To today's Conservatives, as long as the word, "god," is defended in our public life, they can hang their hats and call it a day.

Have Conservatives forgotten that America's heritage was founded long before the Declaration of Independence was penned, the Revolutionary War was won, and the United States Constitution was ratified?

Have Conservatives forgotten that American heritage dates as far back as 1620 with the signing of the Mayflower Compact, which proclaims a specific intent to glorify God and advance the "Christian Faith?"

Have Conservatives forgotten that a predominant sentiment of our American revolutionary forefathers, who defied the tyrannical rule of King George III, was that they recognized "no Sovereign but God," and that they proclaimed, "No king but Jesus?"

This was the clarion call of the American Revolution.

Today, the Name of Christ is banished to the four walls of a church building, and many Conservatives of the Christian persuasion are all-too-happy not to put up a peep.

Today, all mentions of "God," the "Creator," the "Supreme Being," or any other "Deity Supreme," are totally and completely allowed in government and in our public life, but just so long as the Name of King Jesus Christ is excommunicated.

Any official who preaches from the seat of government that Jesus Christ is our nation's only king and sovereign will be attacked, marginalized, vilified, demonized, impeached, and perhaps even criminalized.

The next time Christians hear the clause, "In God We Trust," they should stand up and insist, "In Christ We Trust!"

The next time they hear someone proclaim that ours is "One Nation Under God," they should insist that ours is "One Nation Under Christ!"

Until this happens, our sorry, Pluralist country will continue to freefall as a pathetically wretched "One Nation Under Fill-in-the-Blank."

Reed R. Heustis, Jr., Esq. is a Southern California native, and publisher of Christian Constitutionalist. A member of the State Bar of California, Reed earned his Juris Doctor from California Western School of Law in San Diego, and his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from University of California at Irvine. Reed and his family are members of a local church affiliated with the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America.

More columns by Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

Like This Page?