Monday, October 18, 2010

The Gospel According to Glee

I am one of those who likes to sit in my living room with my laptop and “watch” television. Although I may not catch the show or movie in its entire detail, most of the time I do pay enough attention to know what is going on, in case my wife asks what just happened, as she often does. A few of Tuesdays ago, we sat in front of the television. We both were writing, as is often the case, when Glee came on after The Simpsons. Instead of simply acknowledging it was on and going back to our merry authoring, we were a little more attentive. This week was…well, different. In the midst of that particular week were the highly publicized suicides of homosexual teens. These events, atrocious as they were, helped shed much needed light on the ignorant act of bullying. It was something that I could have probably guessed was happening, but in my fairytale world of princes and thieves, I conveniently disregarded it as being their problem, whoever they are. Because of these events and the media’s focus on Glee, my wife and I were interested in seeing how that particular episode, “Grilled Cheesus,” would unfold.
Although important, I am not writing to address the ignorance of those who are intolerant, nor am I writing to condone or condemn a particular lifestyle. The issue of focus has to deal with truth. Not a truth that is particular to any one belief, but one that clarifies the message each of the many world philosophies attempt to communicate.
There is a certain point when a belief in one’s lifestyle compromises the belief of another. And although the current evangelical belief maintains that the United States must disallow laws which do not glorify God, it seems to be forgetting their doctrine of free will. Although there has been a great debate since the beginning of the role of free will in the obtaining of salvation, an overwhelming majority of evangelicals believe that, outside of salvation, we have free will to choose whether or not we honor God with our lives.
The philosophy that wishes to establish a semi-theocratic government actually suppresses all other belief systems and, therefore, by necessity, suppresses their own belief through the backlash of their adversaries. On the other hand, if there were a law which mandated that, from this day forward, all marriages can only be between two persons of the same sex, throwing out the thought of heterosexual marriage, there would be a need for those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong to stand up, be heard and show why it is wrong. Because of this filter of truth through reason, society could only truly glorify God when the majority of the people have the freedom to do so by their own choice. Without that filter of reason, there tends to be more intolerance.
Intolerance is the point at which one lifestyle hinders another lifestyle from practicing its belief. If the Christian’s goal is to use the country to glorify God, they need to be aware of the paradox with making non-believers glorify a God in which they do not believe. Rather than developing an approach that suppresses society, why not focus on presenting a message in a way that lets the country choose to glorify God? If society’s goal is to allow many lifestyles to coexist, then those lifestyles must be portrayed accurately.
The fact that two people tolerate one another does not necessarily mean that they accept each other’s beliefs. Tolerating another's belief without debate is not in itself a problem, but it does severely suppress the truth. For that reason, a point should be made to debate these disagreements in a civil fashion. But, more often than not, this does not happen in our society.
Many have gotten too comfortable and are not willing to even debate their beliefs. When considering today’s society, it seems the debate has turned ruthless and disrespectful. This can lead to many destructive situations. It could cause a one sided debate where one debater screams to overpower the other. It also may lead to the following of an ideology which fails to question the primary motive of those who tell their followers what they want to hear.
The classic case of an evangelical church begins with a doctrine that believes in a literal translation of the bible. In other words, they believe that the creation of earth happened in seven days, Adam and Eve were real people, and the earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old. Evolution is sometimes accepted, but only happening within a species, and never morphing into a separate species. The evangelicals also believe that America’s founding fathers intended the country to be an entirely Christian country. Although academia debates this concept and accepts that America was founded on many secular writings and non-Christian beliefs of the founding fathers, they disagree with much of the evidence that says differently. There is an immense amount of both political and ideological conservatism within this group. Even if logic contradicts their interpretation of the bible, they still stand firm and refuse to change what they believe.
There were many controversial topics that surfaced during Glee’s “Grilled Cheesus.” The most obvious one to address would be the separation of church and state. The episode sets up the issue by the cheerleading coach, Sue, recruiting a fellow atheist, Kurt, to file a formal complaint on the Glee club for singing religious songs. It is evident that an evangelical would probably find it obligatory to focus on the separation of church and state. But, as long as Christianity is allowed to be preached and practiced, they have more than enough freedom to do what they are called to do. And if the general public does not accept the message, there isn’t anything that can be done. Forcing others to accept a message isn’t biblical. It is biblical, though, for a Christian to assume that their message will not always be accepted by others.
So, if the separation of church and state is not the most significant topic of the episode, what in Glee should be addressed? Kurt was invited to church by Mercedes. Mercedes attended a charismatic, evangelical church, as previously described. Before her amazing performance of “Like a Bridge over Troubled Water,” she began to talk to Kurt. In front of the entire congregation, Mercedes singled Kurt out and explained that she knows people sometimes believe in different things. She then proceeded to console him by telling him that it is cool he had his own opinion about ‘religion’ (“to each [his] own”), but he had to believe in something. Adding to the inconsistency, the members of the congregation shook their head in agreement.
I am not trying to debate whose belief is right, or whether or not there is a God. I simply disagree with the false portrayal of the evangelical church as a new-aged and further evolved Christian church. Moreover, it isn’t the way the scenario raveled out with which I disagree. It is that a basic foundation of the church’s doctrine, evangelizing, was missing. Am I objecting to the liberation of a conservative movement? No, because I am a part of the movement to liberate the conservative. But I am objecting to the fact that the evangelical church was portrayed in a way that is contrary to its identity. Glee’s script implies that this particular movement tolerates the belief in the antithesis of Christianity. This is absurd. And it should be seen as absurd to both Christians and non-Christians alike. Fundamentalists, all too often, do not tolerate other belief systems, period. Mercedes’ line “…you gotta believe in something” would not be something you hear in the type of church portrayed on the show. And the congregation agreeing to the validity of Mercedes’ line wipes away any inkling of truth that the portrayal might have showcased.
So, could the writers have represented the church’s real beliefs with tact? Of course it could have. The writers of the show are very talented as evidenced by their show holding a top spot on Fox. I am sure they could have developed something which could have correctly portrayed the church in the correct light. But they didn’t. Why? Is it because they did not know better? I doubt it. Christian fundamentalism has spread far and wide throughout the country. Or was it because they did not want to offend their viewers with a message that claimed to be the one and only truth? Indeed. Christian fundamentalism is considered so radical compared to the larger society that it cannot be both purely portrayed in its entirety and accepted by the secular world.
This episode obscures the real identity of evangelical Christianity. It may not be obvious at first, but it should be a concern for both the Christian and non-Christian individual. The evangelical church adamantly maintains that its God is the only God, and no others are beside or above Him. To the non-Christian, portraying the church like this is to their benefit. If a group claimed to know the absolute truth of life, then it is more likely that they will be subjected to scrutiny by those investigating their claim. If the non-Christian community’s beliefs are correct and there is no more truth in this religion than there is in others, then it opens the door for those of the Christian faith to be subjected to more investigation. The writers of the show may have dodged a little controversy, but neglecting to portray the evangelical church in a true light may have had negative implications relative to their intentions, which was, essentially, to bring society as a whole closer to the truth.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Interested in Becoming a Part of the Team?

WELCOME

The entire purpose of this blog is to provide a space for any random topic.  Since "any random topic" is quite general, we are obligated to establish some sort of standard which must be met before the work submitted by the author will be posted. Both fiction and non-fiction writings are accepted. And we encourage you to submit your writing as often as you'd like. Random-knuts makes no money, nor does it seek to make money, off of this site.

How We're Getting the Word Out

While writing is great practice and getting posted to a blog where millions of potential readers have access to your material is even better, it isn't enough to get noticed.  Since just posting your work and letting it sit is a great waste of both of our times, we have taken steps toward getting the word out about the site.  Currently, we have two twitter accounts tweeting the site and the existing material.  We have all the analyses tools set and ready to go to identify and take advantage of any trends or niche markets the minute they exist.  Once the blog begins to pick up steam we will revisit our stance to possibly replace this website with one that we will have complete control over. If there is a demand, we could look into publishing a mini-e-newspaper. So, in short, right now we are focusing on writing and getting others' writing posted. After a period of time, we'll see how serious we can get.

Your Part

When visitors read your material it means that you are being seen. If you are often seen by those interested in your realm of expertise, it can only help you in becoming the writer you want to be. That said, there is only so much the site can do; so, there must be a commitment from you, as an author, to recruit and inform your fans. The more page views you have and the longer your fans read your material, the better off you are at getting noticed. If you feel that you aren't interested in being noticed, that's okay. Building a fan base doesn't always have to deal with celebrity or developing a career. It can also serve as a platform for you to introduce your ideas or become a better writer by asking your readers to critique your work.  So, if your goal isn't to become a famous writer, only to write, you're in the right spot, because building a fan base can solicit your work to the much needed criticism that many writers want to hear.

Plagiarism

All writing will be scanned for plagiarism using specialized software.  If there are any concerns, at all, with your article or writing, then we will not post it.  Moreover, if there are two instances of what is perceived as plagiarism then we will no longer accept your material. As long as you submit all the sources from where you obtained the information you have used in your writing, there shouldn't be any issues with plagiarism.





INTERESTED IN BECOMING A PART OF THE TEAM?

If you are interested in becoming a volunteer writer, then email us at:

random.knut@gmail.com

Let us know that you are interested in writing and we'll send you more information as soon as we can!

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Earmarks, Terrorism and the Preparedness of our Local Law Enforcement


Since the attacks on September 11th there has been a dramatic shift of focus on terrorism in and outside of America.  Since that national tragedy, a mass construction plan of thirty-three building complexes has been initiated – totaling 17 million square feet of space of which we are aware – specifically focused on top-secret intelligence. Moreover, with a federal government drawing from an undisclosed budget and a force of some 854,000 people with security clearance, it is not hard to believe that this focus on terrorism has been well concealed from the public, and hopefully the enemy’s, eyes.  But, even with all of this grandiosity, can America really say that it is as safe, or safer, than before?  More specifically, looking at the periods before and after 9-11, has the drastic increase in funding and resources led to better prepared local law enforcement and does this focus on terrorism affect their ability to keep their locality safe?
Although many of the duties of keeping the nation safe from terrorism have been passed down to the local law enforcement, there are certain vital issues which substantially weaken the prevention or response efforts asked of the local law enforcement officers. Firstly, the literature passed down from an ambiguously structured web of agencies, the federal government, is vague, at best, but it does send a general message of what is expected of the local law enforcement agencies:
·         “Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States
·         Reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and;
·         Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur (Jr. 2007)
Because the algorithm which determines the funding for each city is biased toward lower populated areas, there is often a misallocation of funds, giving more money to those in the lower populated areas than those in the more populated like New York and Washington D.C. which are perceived to be at a higher risk-level for terror attacks.  In academia, determining which type of attack that is most probable is often widely debated, therefore, adding even more ambiguity in local law enforcement prevention and response planning.
            The important gaps that local law enforcement have to deal with boil down to a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, within the federal government, of which determinants efficiently disperse funds.  A good way to address these gaps is by considering the needs and priorities of the local law enforcement agencies, as opposed to just throwing some money at the agencies, saying “protect the people.”  Focusing on this general topic might help identify those variables that play a significant role in local law enforcement prevention and response.  Although the only information available on this comes from a study focused on local law enforcement in South Carolina, there are still some important points that may add to a fuller understanding of the post-9/11 threat of terrorism with which local law enforcement agencies have to deal. 
            The findings of the study highlighted several predictors which substantially indicated local law enforcement’s preparedness of preventing and responding to terrorist attacks.  A few of the variables were, well, predictable.  Agency size played a significant part, as did the accreditation status of the agency.  The presence of a SWAT team played a large part, but this could be contributed to the size of the agency.  Interestingly, agencies that were oriented toward technology played a significant role in local agencies preparedness.  More prevalent than the programs that local law enforcement may have and/or be involved in; federal funding is the key variable and, by far, held the most significance in predicting an agency’s preparedness.  Keeping these findings in mind, the raw, unanalyzed data should provide answers to some questions the author didn’t ask, nor answer.
            The primary concern is for each municipality to be prepared. Looking at funding is only one way to spur questions which would prove to be beneficial in determining the preparedness of local law enforcement.  Pork-barrel spending is often a scapegoat for misallocation. Legislators that earmark legislation for the companies of their localities often cause an overfunding or underfunding of the local law enforcement.  Since pork-barrel spending is often used to send funds to a specific constituency, can the primary predicting variable for terrorism preparedness really be the amount of federal funding an agency receives? I don’t believe so and the author of the study certainly didn’t account for it in his analysis. To account for such a flaw, a contrast of total funding received relative to other agency’s funding might be warranted.  Moreover, identifying the localities that are overfunded and keeping those representatives accountable would also lead to a better distribution of funds.  On the other hand, this misallocation could also be misperceived and could turn out that local law enforcement agencies are working with the legislator’s constituency at a reduced cost.
            The significance of looking into whether there is a connection between pork-barrel spending, the legislator’s constituencies and terrorism preparedness is to establish if the underfunding of law enforcement agencies has any connection with agreements made with private companies by legislators. Once the earmarking issue is thoroughly investigated, then it can be better determined whether this misallocation is due to a flaw in the system or last minute additions to legislation.  Moreover, if there is a significant connection between underfunded localities and cheaper prices, then this may not be a matter of misallocation, but overfunding of the entire system.

Works Cited

  • Jr., William V. Pelfrey. "Local law enforcement terrorism prevention efforts: A state level case study." Journal of Criminal Justice, 2007: 313-321.
  • "Post documents growth of intelligence since 9/11." Associated Press. July 19, 2009. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100719/D9H21JGO0.html (accessed October 5, 2010).

Monday, October 4, 2010

A View of Stephen Hawking's New Book from the Other Side.

Set aside an hour, get out your thinking caps, and get ready for a deeper than deep conversation when you click the link below. William Lane Craig explains why Hawking doesn't really say anything new in his book "The Grand Design." I support his argument against the book, but not necessarily the views of the site from which the audio file came.


Click here for the Interview --> The Argument Against Stephen Hawking's Book "The Grand Design."

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Is the Church the Cause for the Moral Degradation of American Values?

           
Choosing to live a new lifestyle is often a conscious decision.  There are many areas in which a person shifts away from the established norm to partake of the fruit, forbidden or not, that is perceived as superior.  These paradigm shifts are not arbitrarily made.  At the least, a responsible adult capable of making rational decisions would be well-informed about the lifestyle they wish to adopt before they begin to think about whether that lifestyle would be beneficial to them.  This same principle can also apply to those that choose to follow a particular religion.  In order to have a full understanding, they should not only seek to understand the moral life that particular religion demands, but the context of the religion, the basic theological underpinnings of its texts and the way in which it evolved over a period of time.
Those who identify themselves as fervent disciples of Christianity often take for granted the logic and reasoning that have been worked through to rationalize their belief.  Knowing what your religious texts say means nothing if you do not understand the basic moral rationale for which it stands.  Knowing the parable is useless if you don’t know its purpose or the context in which it is written.  In order to determine its context, there must be an evaluation of the text.  This is the foundation of a subjective analysis which can ultimately lead you to develop an argument that holds up to the scrutiny of peer review.
It seems that Christian theology has lost this today though.  If there is a dispute, then it’s suggested that the disputers break off and start their own denomination.  American Christianity is often plagued with this denominationalism.  This lax of focus on publically debating the truth is what has led to the Christian’s over-acceptance of pluralism.  The over-acceptance of pluralism that spurred from denominationalism has made the Christians of today complacent in their desire to evaluate the logic behind their religious and political beliefs.  This negligence of striving toward truth in the church has now seeped into the political realm through the Christian church’s adoption of the political conservative movement.  The ideology of political conservatism has set its very strong roots in the Christian church, allowing a focus on practicing doctrinal truth to be muted by the screaming of the politically conservative news hosts.
This political activism that Christianity has become a part of states that the cause of the increasing immorality in this country is with a government that passes laws which support the granting of freedoms for lifestyles outside of Christian morals.   This, they say, is the cause of the degradation of the American moral values which were originally supported by the Christian principles of our founding fathers.  But is the issue really with a government that passes laws which allow the expression of a lifestyle a person chooses to live?  If not, can all civil views be given the right to practice and the country still be a country that lives by Christian principles?  Although the current conservative thought disagrees, it is hard to argue with the fact that it would be a better measure of how holy a country is if the country abides by Christian values even when rights are given to those whose lifestyles are contradictive to Christian belief.  That is, if the primary goal of the American Christian church is to truly honor God with their actions.
The God Given Freedom of Lifestyle
All the major theologians including Jean Calvin, Martin Luther and Augustine of Hippo, believed that we have freewill in our decisions, not considering salvation.  The freewill debate that started with Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century was about the ability to choose one’s salvation and not the ability to choose the actions which please God.  As a matter of fact, the bible says that after salvation we are a new creature.  Therefore, since we are a new creature we begin to make different choices.  Consequently, new believers change the way in which they choose in order to reflect their understanding of God, seasoned believers consciously work to continually make choices that reflect their better understanding of God, and sanctified believers work to make choices that reflect a complete understanding of God.
Knowing that there is a change from the old to the new creature and that the choices we made after salvation are made from our own freewill, can we really say that mandating others, against their freewill, to obey theocratic-like laws will lead this country to honor God?  Moreover, are we so ignorant to think that the law directly reflects the holiness of a country?  Or is it a better measure when the holiness of a country is directly reflected in the actions of its citizens?
The conservative movement that America has experienced has demanded that laws be in place in order to honor God.  But was the law not formally written after the fall of Adam?  Did the law not always pertain to a nation of people as opposed to a people within a specific geographical space? And was the New Testament not written and canonized after the Jews and gentiles decided to adhere to the idea of Christianity?  The disease that’s leading us into immorality has not to do with the lack of laws which glorify God.  It is simply a symptom of the bigger problem.  The disease is with a faltering Christian force that is more concerned with political action which mandates others to live like a Christian instead of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a way that society can truly accept.
Congregational Complacency
A common belief of the conservative movement today is that society’s work ethic has diminished.  They believe that we are lazier today than those who were our age now, a decade ago.  And ultimately, this is seen as the poor, more so than those who aren’t, taking advantage of government benefits.  But why would those that claim to be Jesus’ followers be so concerned with assisting a population for which he so adamantly taught us to care?  It is simply because the conservative ideology has forced the Christian to become so complacent in their own political view that they refuse to question whether those views parallel Christian theology.  Moreover, their energy is spent more on nurturing the plants of the bad ground than sowing the seeds and fostering the crop of the good ground.
This same church is itself knee-deep in slothfulness.  A good example of this can be seen in 2nd Thessalonians.  The Thessalonians became lazy.  Because of a misunderstanding of Paul’s first letter to the church, they believed that the second coming was in the very near future.  They ignored their jobs and actively looked for apocalyptic signs.  This, ultimately, led to the entire town being filled with what Paul considered “idle busybodies.”
So, is this any different than the current Christian church in America?  I don’t believe so.  The primary example being in the way the church is so overwhelmingly concerned with the second coming that any military action of the US government is justified only if the US supports Israel.  But even if this is the eve of the apocalypse and the US continues to support Israel, does that necessarily mean that all the actions of the government are justified?  No, because nothing, country or individual, is morally exempt.  The preoccupation with the second coming isn’t the only similarity to the church of Thessalonica.  The church has become dangerously complacent. 
We, as Christians, have become complacent and lazy in our ministry.  It’s not that we are lazy and resist working to support our families.  The American worker, on average, is not lazy and takes tremendous pride in earning the money to support his or her family.  The American Christian isn’t afraid to work for money and that’s the issue.  American Christians are not willing to give up their time to serve others unless they earn a wage.  This has led to the fact that they have become lazy in their ministry.  Instead of being consumed with ministering and serving our communities, which necessitates a personal accountability, we are consumed with passing legislation which makes it appear that our society exudes Christian values all the while basking in our ever-available leisure.  We have justified a trade of local community ministries and personal accountability for global ministries that offer little personal accountability.  The American Christian has traded a week’s worth of God’s work for a week’s worth of something else we would rather be doing.  We have traded the message of humility for a message of national religious pride.  We have shifted from an intimate person-to-person witness for a dull impersonal message from a televangelist.  We have switched progressivity for complacency.
It is hard to believe that with the passion the church has in serving God that the contradictory life we lead is intentional.  It is as if the church has been misled.  There has been such a break from the foundation of Christianity – love – that it has turned into hate.  This hate is justified by the church’s delusion that denying civil freedoms and mandating people to accept the Christian lifestyle is somehow a step toward holiness.  But passing laws that reflect Christian values is not the answer.  It does not correctly represent the way in which the nation is truly living.  In fact, it makes it easier for the Christian individual to live in society and it gives the Christian individual a social status.  Consequently, this oppresses non-believers, forcing them to consent to a lifestyle against their freewill.  This process is the literal converse of how God created the world to operate.  God gives believers the freewill to choose their lifestyle and does not force us to serve Him.  The establishing of a theocratic-morph only supports the claim that the church has become and is becoming dangerously complacent.
So, how could a country give its people the freedom to live the lifestyle they want and also honor God at the same time?  This can only be done with a complete paradigm shift of the Christian community.  First and foremost, the church needs to educate their congregations in logic, the interpretation of biblical languages, the interpretation of biblical context, theology, history and other subjects which demand critical reasoning.  This is the largest deficit the church has to overcome. Secondly, there needs to be an intense focus on the community which would require the joint effort of each and every church within that community.  Finally, there needs to be a new focus on the striving for doctrinal truth by means of inter-congregational, inter-church and inter-denominational debate that is civil.  This country’s focus on Christian values will only be truly shifted when the work of the Christian church and individual has impacted America with the gospel in such a way that it is truly accepted.  And if we are honestly concerned about being a country that honors God, the decisions that are made to follow Christ by those with lifestyles contradictory to Christian values must be made without any essence of forced conversion.  It is only when people have truly chosen to live by Christian values that society will begin to reflect the acceptance of Christianity and not by the establishment of any law.
On the Education of the Congregation
The dire need for Christianity to step up education especially applies to those who wish to be socially or politically active.  As Christians, we seek to proselytize the gospel.  Knowing what the bible and other religious texts say is important.  But if you want to argue with those who don’t believe in its authority, it’s just a waste of both of your times.  Using the logic behind the bible is the key for Christians, but it is impossible to do if you try to use the bible as a literal interpretation.  Literalism should immediately be discounted once the creation story, and the multitude of support against it, is considered.  The bible’s literal interpretation is not only disputed by science, but, interestingly, all the major Protestant theologians, including Arminius and Zwingli, of the Reformation.  Moreover, the majority of the early fathers, which provided the foundations for Christian theology, did not believe in take all scripture literally.  Further, even Ancient Judaism saw the first six chapters of Genesis to be strictly used for theological purposes and not as a historical reference.
Biblical literalism is what separates the evangelical Christian from witnessing and debating in a logical and rational manner.  And because there is more evidence that the bible should not be taken literally than there is that supports it, as well as ongoing findings in science which also supports it, this topic would be a good starting point to truthfully and subjectively address in a debate.  Generally speaking though, the debate is an important component that the Christian church of America has never used to the extent of its European counterparts.  Why have these debates stopped with the establishment of America?  Are we so proud to think that we have reached a true interpretation of the Word?  Why have we quit questioning our theology or setting it up to subjectivity?  The Reformation was a turning point in Christianity, but it wasn’t the ending point of theological truth.  Not questioning existing doctrine and positing new approaches is just another way to keep a church already complacent in ministry complacent in understanding its own theology.
Conclusion
It is often thought that the degradation of America over the years is because the government has become tolerant of lifestyles that contradict Christian values.  But the lack of focus on the part that the American Christian church plays in the moral degradation of the country should, itself, be seen as a red flag.  I can’t help but think of the message in Matthew 7: 5 – “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”
We, church, are hypocritical, comfortable and lazy.  We are afraid to allow those of society to choose the lifestyle they wish to live because we are too complacent in our locality, not wanting to put in the effort that matches those efforts that came before us.  We have gotten too used to justifying our own ministry as the supporting of others who minister in our stead in faraway lands.  Aside from the controversial debate with salvation, the only way for anyone to truly choose the daily actions a Christian lifestyle demands is when they have the complete freewill to do so.  And ultimately, the only way to know that a nation has truly chosen to honor God is when they do so in an environment that allows them to do so willfully.  Therefore, legislation that gives others the freedom to choose lifestyles which contradict Christian values should be seen as progress for the Christian because it is a step in the direction to ensure those who decide to follow Christ do so freely.  And it is only when the nation, as a whole, freely chooses to adhere to Christian values, and is seen doing so, that it can be accurately said that this country truly honors God.