By Jason Hines, Esq. -


There were sev­eral speak­ers on the DVD, and each of them had two respon­si­bil­i­ties. First, to make sure that they estab­lished the idea that Amer­ica is a Chris­t­ian nation that that Judeo-Christian prin­ci­ples are to be incul­cated into gov­ern­ment. Sec­ond, the goal was to con­vince Chris­tians that they should be polit­i­cally involved, vote their val­ues and encour­age other Chris­tians that they should do the same. Sev­eral pop­u­lar con­ser­v­a­tives are recruited to help make these points. Despite the mul­ti­plic­ity of voices, there are some prob­lem­atic themes that run through­out the pre­sen­ta­tions. Each of the pre­sen­ters engages in some ele­ment of either mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion or mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of facts, spe­cious logic, or just plain bad theology.

The mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of facts was some­what expected. Most of it was con­ser­v­a­tive evan­gel­i­cal talk­ing points. Both David Bar­ton and Newt Gin­grich made men­tion of the fact that the Supreme Court has taken prayer out of schools. Of course this is not true. Engel v. Vitale

Mr. Bar­ton makes the same illog­i­cal leap in his dis­cus­sion of Chris­tians in the vot­ing booth. He assumes that all Chris­tians feel the same way he does, and that if those Chris­tians vote pro-choice or pro– gay mar­riage, then they are not vot­ing their val­ues. This type of rhetoric is disin­gen­u­ous and does not help to win peo­ple to their cause.

Dr. Dob­son is using his the­ol­ogy to white­wash his­tory, and to ignore the fact that Amer­ica has never been the Chris­t­ian nation that these peo­ple envi­sion it to have been.

As I think about the events of the day and the con­tent of the DVD, two final points jump out to me. One, Newt Gin­grich said what the goal of this DVD really is. At one point he states that it is time for peo­ple of faith to take back power from the minor­ity elite. That is the real issue. It is not truly about hav­ing this nation be Chris­t­ian. It is not truly about feel­ing per­se­cuted for their major­ity faith. Rather, this is about want­ing to be in con­trol of oth­ers. To com­pel peo­ple to fol­low their will (not even the will of God).

Two, my wife and I noticed some­thing inter­est­ing as we sat amongst the mem­bers of the Old West Cow­boy Church. The pas­tor pro­vided note paper for us and encour­aged us to take notes for our own edi­fi­ca­tion. As we looked around room, we real­ized that we were the only peo­ple attempt­ing to take detailed notes. Most peo­ple did not write any­thing down at all. Some only wrote down a sen­tence here or there. My wife and I were the only peo­ple who attempted to record all the major points being made by all the speak­ers. This lack of crit­i­cal thought was the most appalling thing to me. These peo­ple were being sold on all kinds of his­tor­i­cal, log­i­cal, and bib­li­cal inac­cu­ra­cies, and they were more than will­ing to accept it with­out inspection.


Jason Hines is Asso­ciate Edi­tor for Reli​gious​Lib​erty​.TVthe​hi​ne​sight​.blogspot​.com



  1. Kjames says:

    Very good report­ing, and not sur­pris­ing what the con­tent of the meet­ing was.  It is truly sad that so many peo­ple DO NOT check any of the state­ments these false teach­ers cough up about the Bible or Amer­i­can his­tory.  No, they are con­tent in non crit­i­cal accep­tance of the false fod­der pro­vided them.  Just look at the large church ser­vices on t.v. and you hardly see a bible in many of them.  Peo­ple are being destroyed for lack of knowl­edge read­ily avail­able to them if they would just read their Bibles for them­selves and pick up his­tory books on Amer­i­can events of the past.  But they won’t.  Chris­tian­ity has for­feited the indi­vid­ual test all things for sim­ple receive all things if it sounds biblical.

  2. Kjames says:

    Just watched the video.….another great trav­esty of the Chris­t­ian Church today is pro­moted: the blend­ing of faith with war/military in a very nar­row def­i­n­i­tion of patriotism.

  3. Toby says:

    I’m the pres­i­dent and founder of the Waco Tea Party and would like to know who claims to be a found­ing mem­ber.… we do not have “found­ing mem­bers” other than myself, and a few oth­ers.  We’re con­fused as to how we got dragged into this story.

  4. Hinesight620 says:


    There was no ill intent in men­tion­ing the Waco Tea Party in this post. I would pre­fer not to men­tion names pub­licly so you can con­tact me at hinesight6​2​0​@​gmail.​com and we can talk about this fur­ther. If the infor­ma­tion given to me is incor­rest, I am more than happy to amend this post to accu­rately reflect the truth of the matter.

     Jason Hines

  5. Matt says:

    Can we really expect the Reli­gious Right to say some­thing new about mis­in­ter­pret­ing the Founding?

  6. Matt says:

    I would like to make an obser­va­tion about a com­ment by Jason in the fourth para­graph of his arti­cle, as opposed to the book’s con­tents. Jason states: “The US Con­sti­tu­tion makes no men­tion of God or Chris­tian­ity, and has some explicit anti-religious state­ments (i.e., the Estab­lish­ment Clause and the pro­hi­bi­tion on reli­gious tests for hold­ing office).” I under­stand Jason to mean that the two clauses he refers to are neg­a­tive about estab­lish­ing reli­gion through fed­eral law and not that the Con­sti­tu­tion is anti-religious in the sense that our gov­ern­ment is hos­tile to reli­gion. The two con­cepts are com­pletely dif­fer­ent in their mean­ing. If he means the Con­sti­tu­tion is hos­tile to reli­gion, then that is mis­rep­re­sent­ing the intent of the doc­u­ment and its founders. Read Madison’s notes on the First Congress’s dis­cus­sion on the estab­lish­ment clause. The first per­son who spoke said he under­stood what the com­mit­tee meant but that the way the com­mit­tee had it phrased could be con­strued to be hos­tile to reli­gion itself. That com­ment was as the bot­tom of most of the com­ments that fol­lowed. The Reli­gious Right is wrong in mak­ing the reli­gion clauses mean it favors reli­gion, espe­cially Chris­tian­ity, but so are the sec­u­lar­ists who make the same clauses mean hos­til­ity to reli­gion. These are two sides of the coun­ter­feit coinage of the sup­posed mean­ing of the clauses. All three clauses deny gov­ern­ment, espe­cially leg­is­la­tors, the power to make laws hos­tile to or in favor of one reli­gion (i.e., as in a denom­i­na­tion, as in a form of reli­gion held in com­mon by churches, as a reli­gious belief, and as a reli­gious dogma).

%d bloggers like this: