The state of Louisiana intends to be at the forefront of a “growing national movement to create and interpret laws according to a particular conservative Christian worldview” according to journalists Rick Rojas, David Chen, and Elizabeth Dias. In a New York Times article published on June 21, they review a collection of laws the current governor, Jeff Landry, has signed but that were vetoed by the previous governor, Democrat John Bell Edwards.

I was taken, as I often am, by the language used to support and criticize these bills. According to the Times writers:

“Dodie Horton, the state representative who sponsored the Louisiana bill, said that having the commandments posted would allow students to ‘look up and see what God says is right and what he says is wrong’.””

Currently, the laws forbid discrimination on the basis of “religion.” I suspect that would not bother Rep. Horton, who sees these commandments as “truth,” rather than “religion.” When you start off with “God says…” you speak for citizens who have other gods, who have no god at all, and who are sure that no reasonable decision can be made on such questions. You also preempt Christians who are quite sure that when God said [whatever was said], God did not mean what you think was meant. I am drawn particularly to the commandment that says you shall not covet any of your neighbor’s property, including his wife.

Several civil rights organizations with a particular interest in church and state questions have issued a statement saying “Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools.” Note that what was “God says…” in Rep. Horton’s argument, has become “the preferred religious doctrine of some politicians” in the civil rights response. I liked especially the insertion of “preferred” in their critique. It adds another step away from the position they are opposing. “God says” has become “a religious doctrine” and even worse, “the religious doctrine they prefer,” as if other citizens “preferred” other religious doctrines.

Rep. Horton wants a war between God and sin to be waged in the public schools. The civil rights groups are pointing out that the “war” is between the doctrines I like best and the doctrines you like best and they are arguing that it is not the business of the schools to judge between my favorite doctrines and yours.

The Christian nationalists of Louisiana do have an advantage, however, that the ACLU and their allies do not have. They have an enemy. This year, that is more important than it has been in any year since I began paying attention to politics in 1960.

Here is Jason Rupert, formerly a state senator in Arkansas and founder of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “This is all born of the leftist culture war tearing down the fabric of the country, and we are saying, ‘Enough’.”

This argument strikes me as ingenious. In the first place, it identifies an enemy so familiar it needs only to be referred to to sound ominous. It is “the leftist culture war.” This is not a charge that would withstand persistent inquiry. The idea that a Christian sect has the right to force its theology onto public school children and that trying to protect the children is a “leftist culture war” is not an idea that is obvious to a neutral observer. Of course, it was not designed for neutral observers.

Second, it is the United States that is the victim of the leftist culture war. We know that because the effect of the war or, even better, the goal of the war is to “tear down the fabric of the country.” The “fabric,” just in case you were wondering, is not made up scrupulous secularity in the public schools. The fabric is God’s plan for America, which, I strongly suspect, it to make America Great Again. Just guessing.

Finally, this tearing down has been going on for a long time. We have tried being patient. We have tried being reasonable. Now it is time to say “Enough.” In this way, all these new legislative devices are really just defensive. They have been warring against America and we have been patient. Finally, our patience has run out and it is time to do something.

Those three emphases, tucked neatly in to Jason Rupert’s remarks, are rhetorically powerful to anyone who begins where he begins. He is arguing for the rightness of his movement. He is not trying to persuade leftists.