In God We Trust Revisited: The Peculiar Case of Former NJ Congressman Scott Garrett

Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey speaking at the 2012 Liberty Political Action Conference in Chantilly, Virginia. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Christian liberty sacrificed at the altar of greed, the tragic tale in which corporate America defines a new arbitrary moral code.

Another fairly recent and notable example of our political system run amuck occurred when alleged ‘social extremist,’ Scott Garrett, became a surprising casualty of the LGBT-driven civil standard. Ironically, Garrett, who formerly chaired the Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee and had perpetually given Wall Street a regulatory easy pass, was thrown under the bus by those he faithfully served. The seven-term Republican incumbent ultimately lost his funding, his support, and his lock on his Fifth Congressional District re-election bid to Democratic challenger and Clinton disciple, Josh Gottheimer.

Garrett–who happens to be a staunch religious conservative–found himself caught between two masters and was devoured by a monster that he, himself, empowered. His outspoken defense of traditional marriage rendered him necessarily expendable in the eyes of the big business/wall street types that keep the campaign money flowing.

Note: In a surprise and somewhat controversial twist, Garrett has been nominated by President Trump over the past week for chairmanship of the Export-Import Bank.

As reported by Politico,

“Democrats on the Banking Committee have reservations about Garrett, including..Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)…she was pleased that Trump was committing to making the bank functional. Still, she has concerns about Garrett, ‘given his past opposition to Ex-Im’s mission, not to mention his divisive rhetoric toward LGBT families.’

…Garrett later denied that he objected to gay candidates and said his problem was with support for same-sex marriage.”

Woodrow Wilcox


Corporations are now driving public policy and solidifying social mores while the average freedom-loving citizen is being hung out to dry. Since when did big business become the authority on social values and moral principles? Should they be driving and setting such standards? Improper use of money and power has poisoned a political system supposedly authorized by the will of the people to set public policy.

American Conservative’s Rod Dreher referenced Garrett’s precarious predicament as part of his sobering analysis on the current threats against a morally conscientious Christian citizenry,


“Christians had better read the handwriting on the wall here—House and Senate Republicans have no intention of taking up legislation to defend religious liberty–It’s too risky to their campaign donations to be seen by Wall Street and Big Business as–‘social extremists.’ If you think the–Party is going to protect our right to be wrong on this issue, you are lying to yourself—Even if they wanted to get religious liberty legislation passed, they don’t have the Congressional Republicans on board—if you think voting Republican is going to protect us, you’re living in a dream world.—Christians desperately need to understand the deeper dynamics at work in the culture–a culture in which affirming–Christian beliefs about homosexuality is a disqualifying bar for holding national office.”

In many ways, corporate America is putting a stake in the heart of the right sided culture warrior.

I could be mistaken, but by and large private corporations and big business are not concerned with traditional social values. I’m not sure they are allies for sanity and true liberty, which is religious liberty, specifically Christian liberty. They are primarily profit driven. But the problem is cultural and the churches are not resisting. They are growing more apostate.

How much boycotting can the average citizen/Christian engage in?  Money talks, but who has it these days? Who has the most influence and impact? The little guy? I fear not. The PC movement is a powerful force both in backing and influence.

Meanwhile, the churches have to get their houses (and doctrines) in order because the average citizen is being set up and led like sheep to the slaughter. I think Garrett should have seen the writing on the wall, however, he’s just another casualty. Ultimately, his big business, Wall Street, and political friends found him too extreme on account of his faithful, traditional worldview.

In fact, further evidence of the powerful cultural-corporate shift occurring on a global scale continues to reveal itself… reports:

“HRC was proud to join world leaders in Davos, Switzerland, during the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting last week.

‘The LGBTQ community is under attack across the globe, and that’s why it’s incumbent upon all of us to keep pushing forward and strengthen our global movement,’ said Chad Griffin, President of HRC, in an article written for the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda.

“HRC co-sponsored a breakfast hosted by Accenture which focused on LGBTQ rights. At the breakfast, senior executives from Microsoft and Accenture joined the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein and President of Human Rights Watch Ken Roth to address the timely question: Are LGBTQ rights going backwards?

“Panelists highlighted the progress we have made, but then urged that we are not yet finished. Though the troubling elections in Western Europe and the U.S. have left the LGBTQ community feeling fearful and uncertain, the panelists emphasized the critical roles that corporations can play in the absence of government support.

This was also the first year that the official program of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting included two sessions focused exclusively on LGBTQ issues. The first LGBTQ session, entitled ‘Discover a World beyond X and Y Genes,’ explored how research in neuroscience, genetics and biology has changed how we think about gender identity. The second session, entitled ‘Good for Business: The Power of Being Out,’ was grounded in the notion that companies perform better in LGBTQ-inclusive societies and offered ways in which corporations can support out employees.”

The new gnostic, scientism of the modern social engineering movement has gone global and Christianity is in its crosshairs. The new social order is using every tool at its disposal to forward their anti-God agenda.

Will the truly religious continue to find themselves on the outside, and perceivably wrong side, of this blind cultural shift? Will there be a place for us even on the fringes of society?

“George Mason University Law School Professor and author of the 2004 book The Case for Sovereignty: Why The World Should Welcome American Independence Jeremy Rabkin argues that globalism fundamentally stands at odds with democratic forms of government. … ‘beyond that it is not democratic, there’s something about it that is a little creepy, a little uncanny. …It’s basically saying ‘We are going to organize the world in a way that establishes an artificial consensus.’ It’s not enough to say it’s undemocratic. It’s threatening; it’s almost demonic. It is a world organized independently of people’s fundamental religious convictions’ “ 

This country was founded first and foremost on religious freedom with an emphasis on God’s moral order. Political reform will only be realized when religious reforms find their true emphasis and proper place and influence. Silence is never an option. Eventually the stones will cry out.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

A.J. Castellitto is a freelance writer who resides in NJ with his wife and five children. He holds a B.S. in Counseling and Human Services from the University of Scranton and his writings have been published at The Center for Western Journalism, The Christian Post, Intellectual Conservative and Reformed Perspective Magazine.
A.J. Castellitto
View all posts by A.J. Castellitto
A.J.s website
  • A. Castellitto

    Sociologists: ‘Christianophobia,’ Anti-Christian Hostility Infects Powerful Elite Subculture (Interview) Christian Post

    Jan 29, 2015

    A small, but elite group of Americans demonstrate signs of anti-Christian hostility, sociologists David Williamson and George Yancey claim in their new book, So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States?

    In an email interview with The Christian Post, Yancey, professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, explained that Christians are fortunate in one sense, because those with anti-Christian hostility are small in number; but in another sense, they should be concerned, because those with “Christianophobia” tend to be powerful elites with influence in certain important areas, such as higher education.

    The data for their research comes from a large national survey, the American National Election Survey, and interviews they conducted with members of liberal advocacy organizations.

    The title of the book is a reference to how some Christians were put to death during the Roman Empire, and the phrase can be found on bumper stickers. Several of the interviewees used some variant of the “so few lions” theme when describing their attitudes toward Christians.

    Yancey added that he and Williamson, associate professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, hope their book will make those who are hostile toward Christians more aware of their own biases so that they can correct them.

    Here is a transcript of that interview:

    CP: Why did you, and co-author David Williamson, want to research and write about anti-Christian hostility?

    Yancey: There is a lot of literature on hostility toward many different groups but just about none on hostility toward Christians. Yet when we collected qualitative data from cultural progressive activists we quickly saw some of the unnecessary vitriol and fears within many of our respondents. We also saw the social status of those who exhibited this hatred and many of them would be in positions that allowed them to at least subtly act on their anger and fears. That motivated us to take a more systematic look at Christianophobia and speculate on how this phenomenon influences certain social aspects in the United States.

    Another aspect that drove me to work on this project was that while I consistently saw evidence of Christianophobia in other areas of my life and in our society, unlike other types of intolerances, those who exhibited Christianophobia do not tend to think that they are intolerant. Usually those who do not like blacks or Muslims admit that they are intolerant but simply try to justify their intolerance. Those with Christianophobia tend to deny that they are intolerant but rather that they are fairly interpreting social reality. Envisioning themselves as fair and free of intolerance allows them to blame those they detest rather than recognize how their emotions have distorted their intellectual judgments.

    By documenting just how hateful some of the attitudes are toward Christians, and who tends to have such hateful attitudes, I hope to bring Christianophobia into the light so that we, as a society, can discuss this social problem and how we might address bigotry in all of its myriad forms.

    CP: You found that there’s a subset of progressives, or liberals, that have animosity toward Christians, or “Christianophobia.” According to them, what is wrong with Christians?

    Yancey: In the minds of many of the respondents Christians are ignorant, intolerant and stupid individuals who are unable to think for themselves. The general image they have of Christians is that they are a backward, non-critical thinking, child-like people who do not like science and want to interfere with the lives of everyone else.

    But even worse, they see ordinary Christians as having been manipulated by evil Christian leaders and will vote in whatever way those leaders want. They believe that those leaders are trying to set up a theocracy to force everybody to accept their Christian beliefs. So, for some with Christianophobia, this is a struggle for our society and our ability to move toward a progressive society. Christians are often seen as the great evil force that blocks our society from achieving this progressive paradise.

    CP: Demographically, you found that Christianophobes are mostly white, wealthy, well-educated and non-religious. Is the fact that this is mostly an elite group good or bad for Christians? In other words, given a choice, would you rather be hated by elites or non-elites?

    Yancey: Obviously all things being equal, an elite individual can do more damage to a person than a non-elite individual. But this does not mean that Christians have it worse than all other groups. We also have to factor in the number of people with Christianophobia. For example, more people have hostility toward atheists than toward Christians, but those individuals do not tend to be white or highly educated. Thus, they do not have the level of per-capita power of those who do not like Christians.

    So is a group worse off if more people do not like them or if those who do not like them have a lot of social power, but there are fewer of them? Context matters to answer such a question. If you want to get elected to political office, then atheists are at a disadvantage since more people do not like them. But if you want to get a higher education, then you will run into a lot more people with power who hate Christians than who hate atheists.

    CP: Can your findings help us understand the recent trend of “intolerant liberalism,” such as the examples The Christian Post noted in, “33 Examples of Intolerant Liberalism in 2014”?

    Yancey: That is an interesting list and, to be fair, some of the examples are just political gamesmanship that you see from both Republicans and Democrats, such as the disinviting of Charles Murray. I am not even sure if Murray is a Christian.

    There are other examples where it is less clear whether it is Christianophobia or something else, much like it is often hard for myself, as an African-American, to know when a person is acting due to racism or some other motivation. I think of the conflict over religious freedom laws in this way.

    But there are some that I think are hard to defend, such as the policies at California colleges which have led to the removal of Christian groups. I have written about such policies and still fail to hear a solid reason why we should give an atheist the “right” to be the president of a Christian group. The only viable reason I can think is because this rule allows college administrators to express some degree of latent Christianophobia with a fiction of promoting equality.

    Ultimately here is where the research that David and I conducted may be of service. We documented that some level of Christianophobia is present among certain powerful subcultures in our society. This helps us understand some actions in our society.

    People do not like to admit that they are biased or bigoted but often those disaffinities come out in other ways. Because of the attention rightly paid to bigotry based on race, sexual preference, sex and even minority religion status, there is social pressure on those who take actions that may harm those groups to engage in introspection to make sure they are not being unfair.

    I have seen a dearth of such introspection by those who make decisions that may harm Christians. I hope that this work will encourage such critical thinking among those with Christianophobia and perhaps help some to confront a bigotry they did not realize they possessed. ……