The difference between the public education advocated by Baird and other Christian Nationalists and the original Jeffersonian kind is that the Jeffersonian was in particular non-sectarian in its nature. That is, Jefferson sought a non-sectarian religion in schools for the purpose of a moral populace. Religion served the end of morality. Baird seemingly wants to distance himself from Jefferson but ironically ends up arguing for the very same reality—a moral populace— and means—a non-sectarian religious public education— as Jefferson himself. Yet there is one all important caveat. Jefferson was not doing so on a particularly *religious* basis. That is, Jefferson was not arguing that religious public education was to be done this way because *God required* it. In an indirect sense, possibly, but for Jefferson public religion of whatever kind was not done for the sake of creating future worshippers. For Jefferson, religion was ultimately utilitarian. Worship was privatized and useful as a means to the higher end of a populace which behaves. But for the Christian Nationalists, religion in Public Education is not merely for the sake of good morals, but ultimately for the sake of good religion. In other words, religious education in public schools served the end of morality for Jefferson. For Christian Nationalists, it serves the end of religion, and in fact, evangelism. Thus, the basis for such education and the terminus for such education are vastly different, as much as night is from day. The strange quagmire is that the sectarians and the secularists can meet in the middle in advocating for a non-sectarian religous education. Each has a different end in mind, but both see the same means as the way to the end. Yet for the Christian religion of a sectarian kind, nothing is more dangerous than the advocacy of a generic religion for *religion's* sake. And this is precisely what makes the Christian Nationalist argument so dangerous: it posits a *religious* basis for a *generic* religiosity. Jefferson's religion, for all its errors, was at least not directly inimical to sectarian religion. There was a middle ground upon which the sectarians and secularists could meet: religion for religion's sake belongs in the churches. Jefferson understood that promoting a generic religion was precisely not intended to create a sectarian populace. And this is what makes the Christian Nationalist argument so befuddling, and in fact overtly dangerous to the very kind of religion they purport to promulgate: promoting a generic religion will actually foster the promotion a sectarian religion. This is, for all intents and purposes, a kind of paganism in disguise, unbeknownst to its adherents. This Is the religion that Machen fought against in the 1920's and that had so infected the churches of every stripe: an advocation a generic Christianity for the sake of a religious populace. It is no wonder that the Machen Warrior Children are the most vocal opponents of this new kind of Christian advocacy. It is also no wonder why this new kind of religious advocacy has become so controversial and divisive in churches: at its core it confuses the means by which the Christian church propagates itself. As Machen so ardently strove, true Christianity propagates itself not in generics but in particulars. It is precisely the particular religion of the Protestants, and even more so, of the Calvinist stripe, in which Christianity is most potent and true that leads people to a genuine Christian faith. The problem for the Presbyterians, who are the most sectarian of all Protestants, that claim to be Christian Nationalists is that they must ground their claims for a generically religious society not in utilitarian terms like Jefferson, but in Divine terms like Calvin. But the older order of Calvinists would see through such claims. They were overt sectarians and wished their governments to be sectarian too. Establishment was not generic but particular. While there are fundamental theological inconsistencies and practical difficulties with a sectarian Protestant government, at least the older Establishmentarians were consistent on this score. But now, the Christian Nationalists of today, many of whom walk under the Presbyterian banner, claim that this generic religion of the public is actually ordained by God to be a feature of the state. And it is this move which proves to be most pernicious. For there is nothing more dangerous to *Presbyterians* who stand wholly upon the freedom which they have in Christ, than to subject themselves, and by extension an unbelieving populace, to the very means by which their own sectarian beliefs would be undermined.