The Founders Wanted A Christian Nation But Not A State-Enforced One
Demanding, as Douglas Wilson seems to do, that public officials proclaim their personal faith in Christ is neither wise, nor moral, nor American, nor Christian.Why is the government letting a Chinese-backed company bulldoze sacred US land?
This summer, like many Americans, I returned to my hometown.
The familiar contours of the landscape — the Great Lakes, sand dunes, and lush forests — carried with them memories not only of childhood but of something deeper: a sense of rootedness. Land is never just geography. It holds meaning. And when that meaning comes from religious devotion, religious liberty demands our respect.
Religious freedom means little if it only shields believers from fines or jail. It must also protect sacred spaces from destruction.
That is why what's happening to the Apache Stronghold — a coalition of San Carlos Apache tribal members and other Native Americans — is not just a local controversy. It's a national shame.
The United States government has approved a plan to transfer Oak Flat, a sacred site in Arizona’s Tonto National Forest, to Resolution Copper, a mining company owned in part by foreign interests, including a firm with Chinese stakeholders. Late Monday night, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order blocking the land exchange at Oak Flat just hours before the swap could have been completed. The panel did not address the merits of the challenge to the deal brought by a group of environmentalists, tribes, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
President Trump took to Truth Social, labeling those who have challenged the deal as “Anti-American.” With all due respect to the president, this temporary stay is a perfect opportunity to reassess.
Sacred rights
For centuries, the Apache people have worshipped at Oak Flat. To build a massive copper mine here — destroying it permanently — is not only a grievous environmental affront but would erase a sacred space central to tribal faith.
A separate lawsuit highlights this latter concern.
The Apache Stronghold sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, arguing that destroying Oak Flat is a direct, government-enabled interference with their religious exercise. But a federal court dismissed the case, claiming, incredibly, that because the land isn’t regulated for religious purposes, the government’s actions don’t count as a burden under RFRA.
That is not just a misreading of the law — it is a failure of moral clarity.
RFRA, passed in 1993 with broad bipartisan support, ensures that federal government actions burdening religious exercise face the strictest judicial scrutiny. If the law does not protect the Apache from the destruction of their most sacred site, what does it protect?
Religious freedom means little if it only shields believers from fines or jail. It must also protect sacred spaces from destruction, especially when the destruction comes at the hands of government-backed corporate interests with foreign ownership.
Hear their cry
The injustice of Oak Flat did not go unnoticed by every member of the Supreme Court.
When the court denied review of the Apache Stronghold’s petition in May, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a sharp dissent: “Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches’ sacred site, this court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case.”
He is right. The court exists to safeguard rights like religious liberty, not to stand aside when those rights are bulldozed — literally.
RELATED: Martyrs don't bend the knee — even to the state
Now, the Apache Stronghold has filed a petition for rehearing, citing the court’s decision earlier this summer in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In Mahmoud, the court sided with parents of faith who sought to opt their children out of exposure to Pride storybooks, a collection of sexually charged books they believed violated their religious beliefs. The ruling affirmed that government cannot force individuals to choose between a public benefit and adherence to their faith.
If that principle protects religious families from coerced participation in a school program, surely it should protect the Apache people from the obliteration of their most sacred worship site.
Not for sale
To its credit, the Trump administration acted to root out anti-Christian bias in the federal government. That commitment should now extend to protecting the Apache people’s religious exercise. This is not about favoring one faith over another. It's about honoring the American promise that no faith is too small to matter and no people too powerless to be heard.
Religious liberty is not a gift from the government. It is a right bestowed by our Creator and safeguarded under the law. While political trends rise and fall, the land endures — and with it our responsibility as stewards. We are entrusted with the care of this beautiful nation, not just for its economic potential but for its deeper meaning.
Oak Flat is not a relic. It is a living testament to a people’s enduring faith. Its destruction would not just scar the landscape — it would scar the conscience of the nation.
There is still time to change course.
The Ninth Circuit may grant relief in the case alleging environment harms. The administration can halt the transfer. And the American people can raise their voices in defense of a principle older than the republic: that some places are sacred and some values are not for sale.
Let us be the kind of nation that hears the cry of people of faith, even when it rises from the mountains of Arizona, even when it does not look or sound like our own. Let us be a people who understand that land is more than property — that it can be sacred ground.
Rubio’s warning to UK: Persecuting Christians for prayer is an ‘egregious violation’ of free speech, religious liberty
Marco Rubio's State Department is standing up for free speech in the United Kingdom after the arrests of Christians participating in silent prayer.
Individuals in the U.K. can face unlimited fines for protesting or silently praying within 150 meters, just under 500 feet, of an abortion clinic. The buffer zones were introduced last year.
'The US State Department is right to call out this injustice.'
Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 64-year-old retired medical scientist, was convicted in April for holding a sign reading, "Here to talk, if you want to," near a facility offering abortion services. She was sentenced to a conditional discharge and fined £20,000.
Adam Smith-Connor, a veteran of the British Army Reserves, was fined £9,000 last year for silently praying near an abortion clinic.
Rose Docherty, a 75-year-old grandmother, was arrested in Scotland in February for holding a sign that read, "Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want." The case against her was dropped last week.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is under investigation for silently praying near a Birmingham abortion facility.
RELATED: Vance bashes UK censorship — this time with gaslighting prime minister just feet away
The Trump administration has been monitoring Tossici-Bolt's case and warns that individuals' fundamental rights are at risk in the U.K.
During the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President JD Vance accused European leaders of engaging in censorship. He later confronted U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer about this issue during a meeting at the Oval Office.
“We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies,” Vance told reporters. “But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens. So that is something we’ll talk about today at lunch.”
Starmer responded to Vance’s comments, stating, “Well, we’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”
The State Department's 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released earlier this month, stated that "the human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom during the year."
"Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism," the report read.
The State Department issued a warning to the U.K. this week about its buffer zone policies.
RELATED: Abortion clinic ‘buffer zones’ turn the UK into a censor’s paradise
A spokesperson for the State Department told the Telegraph, "The U.K.'s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin U.S.-U.K. relations."
"It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm."
The spokesperson noted that the administration continues to monitor U.K. cases and "other acts of censorship throughout Europe."
The U.K. has rejected the Trump administration's claims that the buffer zone policies violate fundamental freedoms.
"Free speech is vital for democracy, including here in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms while keeping citizens safe," a government official told the Telegraph.
Lorcan Price, Irish barrister and legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International, stated, "The U.K.'s treatment of individuals like Livia, Adam, Isabel, and Rose for the false 'crimes' of praying silently or offering conversation shows just how far the country has strayed from its own proud traditions of liberty. The U.S. State Department is right to call out this injustice. It is time for the U.K. government to restore fundamental freedoms and repeal buffer zone legislation."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Southern Baptist Convention’s Theological Commitments Are Worthless If They Can’t Be Public Sphere
Southern Baptists remain united on the Gospel, but things get tricky — and less unified — when the rubber starts to meet the road on other policy issues.The next Christian revolution won’t be livestreamed on TikTok
Ronald Reagan famously cited the Roman maxim, “If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.” That wisdom rings hollow when you’re on the mistake-making side.
Generation Z hasn’t exactly earned a reputation for excellence. As we wrote this, professional activist Greta Thunberg was in Paris, pausing her carbon-shaming campaign to weigh in on the war against Hamas. Here at home, Gen Z Democratic influencer Olivia Julianna is trying to rebrand her party’s image among young men by championing abortion access and highlighting its supposedly deep, hidden love for groups like Black Lives Matter.
Being ‘Christian first, conservative second’ isn’t political surrender. It’s the basis for cultural authority.
That barely scratches the surface.
A quick scroll through X reveals countless under-30 users with enormous followings and the “influencer” label — despite having little real influence. Their mistakes aren’t just frequent. They’re embarrassing.
So what’s a Christian Zoomer supposed to do?
The extreme of ‘influencerdom’
At a high level, the answer is simple: Build systems that reflect Christian values, and challenge the ones that don’t. But real influence won’t come by copying the warped incentives pushed by our generation’s loudest voices.
The skills needed to go viral online rarely match the skills needed to drive real-world change. In fact, they often clash. Posting about the dangers of corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion is one thing; using influence to force lasting change in corporate policy is something else entirely. Both matter — but they aren’t the same.
The other extreme: Apathy
But political “influencerdom” isn’t the only problem. Gen Z also suffers from a serious apathy problem. Between the aftershocks of the COVID economy and apocalyptic climate narratives — why bother thinking seriously about policy if the sun’s going to explode in 10 years? — Zoomers have earned a reputation as, in the Wall Street Journal’s words, “America’s Most Disillusioned Voters.”
We’ll show up to vote — maybe. But posting on Instagram takes less effort, so we’ll do that instead. One analysis summarized the challenge this way: “Campaigns must focus on converting robust online advocacy into real-world voter turnout.” That’s the kind of strategy you get when no one really cares.
RELATED: Church is cool again — and Gen Z men are leading the way
A Christian Zoomer response
As Christians, our duty is the opposite of apathy. We’re called to care. Rejecting our generation’s default indifference is just the beginning. “Christ is King” isn’t a license to coast — it’s the foundation for action.
Here are some practical ways Christian Zoomers can avoid the traps of both performative activism and total disengagement.
Seek wisdom from the right sources. Don’t look to influencers for answers. The people most worth learning from probably don’t have a million followers on X. Avoid the echo chamber of “onlineness.” Instead, find expertise from unglamorous sources: people with “lived experience,” technical know-how, and hard-earned wisdom.
Join a local church. Every Christian needs the weekly rhythm of worship, sound teaching, and community. But for young believers navigating a secular world, the church is especially vital. Find a congregation that preaches the gospel clearly and offers intergenerational support. This isn’t about socializing — it’s about growing in conviction and courage through regular contact with people who live by “Christ first, culture second.”
Vote locally. You don’t have to be a political junkie, but you should know what’s happening in your county. Local and state policies affect your daily life far more than most federal debates. National politics is often a circus; local politics is where things actually get done. Caring about what happens five miles from home is a Christian habit worth cultivating.
Think before you post. Virtue-signaling comes in all forms — left, right, and “based.” Whether it’s a black square or the latest meme, pause before jumping in. Ask: “Am I actually doing something about this issue in my community?” If the answer is yes, then post away. If not, maybe start with action before broadcasting your opinion.
Keep a few friends who disagree with you. Yes, surround yourself with faithful Christians — but don’t retreat into an ideological bunker. Having friends with different views helps you resist tribalism. You may not see eye to eye on politics, but they probably aren’t your enemies. Humanizing your opponents is a discipline, one that fights against the hyperfixation and outrage that dominate our age.
Serve somewhere. Whether you care about the unborn, the incarcerated, or victims of trafficking, find a local organization doing the work — and show up. It’s easy to have strong opinions about cultural decay. It’s much harder to give your time. But service grounds us. It reminds us of God’s blessings and our call to be His hands and feet.
Our generation veers between two extremes: obsessive political engagement and total apathy. Both reflect a flawed attempt to wring meaning from a system designed only to support human flourishing — not define it. And both fail.
The politically apathetic pride themselves on floating above the fray, looking down on those who care enough to engage. The hyper-engaged believe their passion sets them apart — morally superior to the so-called “normies” who sleepwalk through civic life.
Both attitudes are wrong.
If we, the rising generation of Christians, want to engage the culture meaningfully, we must refuse to measure our success — or define our mission — by worldly standards.
Being “Christian first, conservative second” isn’t political surrender. It’s the basis for cultural authority. It doesn’t excuse disengagement. It demands engagement.
We act because we believe every person bears the image of God. That truth drives our pursuit of justice, mercy, and truth. Our theology shapes our politics, not the other way around.
And if pagan, anti-Christian values fall in the process? So much the better!
Martyrs don’t bend the knee — even to the state
In 1535, Saint Thomas More went to his death, not in defiance of his king but in ultimate service to both God and England. His final words — “I die the king’s faithful servant, and God’s first” — captured the essence of true religious liberty: the freedom to fulfill the duty to worship God rightly. As the patron saint of religious liberty, More challenges lawmakers and church leaders to renew their commitment to defending that sacred duty.
To More, religious liberty wasn’t just freedom from state interference. It meant the freedom to obey God, even at the cost of his life. His last declaration made clear that duty to God comes before any loyalty to civil authority. Pope Leo XIII put it plainly in “Immortale Dei”: “We are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.”
When laws hinder the duty to worship God rightly, they chip away at the foundation of religious liberty the founders meant to preserve.
More lived this principle, choosing martyrdom over surrender to the world. His death makes clear that real freedom begins with obedience to God — a truth rooted in the moral obligations of human nature. To defend religious liberty is to affirm the duty to give God the worship He deserves, a duty no earthly power — not even a king — can rightly deny.
America’s founders understood this well. They saw religious liberty not as license, but as the right to fulfill one’s duty to God. James Madison wrote, “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”
RELATED: Why Trump's religious liberty agenda terrifies the left — but tells the truth
America’s founders drafted the Constitution with the understanding that citizens would practice their religious duties — not as optional acts, but as essential to a free and moral society. As John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That understanding now faces growing threats. When laws hinder the duty to worship God rightly, they chip away at the foundation of religious liberty the founders meant to preserve. Consider the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips. For refusing to make cakes that violated his faith, Phillips endured more than a decade of legal battles, fines, protests, and business losses. He wasn’t seeking special treatment — he simply wanted to live out his faith. Although the Supreme Court eventually sided with him, the fight drained years of his life and resources. Religious liberty delayed for a decade amounts to religious liberty denied.
True religious freedom, as More and the founders envisioned it, demands strong protections for people and institutions to live out their beliefs in every area of life, not just within a sanctuary or under the narrow shelter of exemptions.
To fulfill the vision of religious liberty embodied by Thomas More and upheld by America’s founders, Americans must renew their commitment to strengthening religious institutions through laws that promote the common good. Elected leaders cannot separate their faith from their public responsibilities. Religious truth shapes just governance.
Having just celebrated Religious Liberty Week, we would do well to recall More’s words: “God’s first.” True religious liberty begins with the duty to worship God as He commands. That duty forms the bedrock of a free and just society.
Here Are 8 Killer Quotes From Justice Alito’s Latest Sit-Down Interview
'We are not supposed to do what is popular, we're supposed to do what is right,' said Justice Samuel Alito.How Trump Can Resolve A Legal Battle Between Mining Rights And Religious Liberty
The Resolution mine literally destroys a Native American place of worship. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows burdens on religion when the government can demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means available.
www.theblaze.com