The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The RR on the Church/State Divide and Patriotism

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are advocates of religious freedom. We believe the First Amendment to our Constitution gives all of us the right to freely exercise our religious faith and that religious faith is the cornerstone of freedom in this nation. Our Founding Fathers supported religion, purchased Bibles, established congressional chaplains, and sent missionaries to witness to the Indians. They enacted the First Amendment to protect religious freedom, not to stifle it. We are opposed to any movement in this country that will strip away our constitutional rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association.

You’ve probably heard the RR referred to as “theocrats” and “theocons” akin to the Taliban, and that the RR is pushing dominionism and/or reconstructionism, seeking to forcibly institute a conservative form of Christianity as the official state religion and to pass all sorts of laws turning those outside of their inner circle into second class citizens and criminals.

I have not seen this to be typical of the RR.  I have not seen any significant RR organization advocate such ideas.  There are no doubt small, unorganized smatterings of those sorts mixed in with the RR crowd, but they are not normative.  They are considered the fringe by most of the RR and not taken very seriously.  There is a very simple test to see if someone could possibly believe in coercive dominionism or reconstructionism.  Do they talk about being on the lookout for “the Antichrist” and a “rapture” of Christians being imminent?  If so, those people are expecting the world to get worse and the government to fall under the control of their opponent any day now, and that certainly doesn’t line up with a belief that the whole country will be truly Christianized through their efforts.  There are other Christians that believe the whole world will be Christianized - voluntarily.

Either way, the RR is not seeking to eliminate the government/church divide.  Even dominionists foresee a voluntary adoption of active Christianity by the masses - thereby ushering in paradise on Earth.

Ironically, it is liberals who seek to force “Christian charity” and “social justice” via the government – social programs, welfare, living wage laws, taxation policies, outlawing “hate”, etc.

When the RR refers to the U.S. as a “Christian nation”, they are referencing the founding of then nation, the principles behind that founding, the traditions of the country, and the overwhelming professed religious designations with which the citizens self-identify.

The RR maintains that Christopher Columbus and later the original European colonists in the colonies that became the U.S. were Christians seeking to further Christendom, spread the Gospel, and live by Christian principles without being persecuted.  They point to the colonial governments, founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and things like the Northwest Ordinance to put the U.S. Constitution in such a context.

The U.S. Constitution, including most Amendments and especially the first ten, are wholeheartedly supported by the RR.  They support freedom of religion with the caveat that religious expression must fall within certain laws of our “Christian” nation.  For example, you can’t legally practice human sacrifice or prostitution (in most places), even if it is part of your religion.

The “Establishment Clause” in the Constitution is seen by the RR as a way to prevent the Federal government from making any particular denomination the official national religion or to interfere in churches (except to prosecute crime), with a mind to the situation in England with the Anglican Church. Based largely on history and earlier precedents, they do not agree that it mandates the removal of prayer, chaplains, or religious or theistic monuments, imagery, symbols, mottos, books, meetings, or language from government buildings, currency, the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in government proceedings, speeches, press conferences, or public discourse or events.

As such, the RR is against the removal of Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land and seals, and other ways of "secularizing" society.

Nor does the Establishment Clause, according to the RR, prevent tax money from being distributed to religious charities and social programs as long as tax money is going to any charities or social programs.  However, many RR organizations do not want to accept such funding, believing it will come with strings they do not want to accept.

The RR also tends to be very patriotic, with many of the people believing the U.S. is the greatest nation on earth and one with an exceptional responsibility.  Part of that manifests in wanting to “protect the flag”, and hence past support for an Amendment to ban flag burning.  Personally, I love this country and there have been some wonderful things done for humanity under our flag.  I think people who burn the flag are lowering themselves to the level of slime.  But I just can’t get all that passionate about spending resources on an attempt to pass an Amendment banning flag burning.  On the other hand, I can’t commit to thinking it should be protected free speech.  However, that is the current default.

You should note that Jehovah’s Witnesses and certain other morally conservative religious groups that might be perceived as part of the RR see the government, and all governments in the world, as part of a system that is inherently contrary to the will of God and believe that God (note - God, not them) will overthrow them all to establish His direct rule on Earth in the future, and because of this and related religious reasons, they will not serve in the military or pledge allegiance to the flag.  Mormons, on the contrary, obviously have nothing against voting, holding elected office, or serving in the military.  (Just for the record - I consider both of those groups to be pseudo-Christian cults that have a leadership that is misleading them.)

Speaking of the military, I will touch on the RR’s view of military defense as well as law enforcement, capital punishment, and gun ownership in my next post on the RR.

In conclusion for this post, I want to point out that the RR does not want to take away your freedom of religion, or force their religion on you.  The RR loves the U.S. and believes that the Constitution is largely inspired by - and thus compatible with – Biblical principles, so they do not want to do away with the Constitution.