The current scholarly understanding of civil religion and civic piety, put forth most notably by Roderick Hart, identifies it almost completely with the governments aims and the status quo; civil religion in this view has only a priestly, not a prophetic role. I argue that contemporary discourses of the Christian Right problematize this notion in presenting civil religious discourse as a contested space. In this essay, I analyze David Bartons 1992 book The Myth of Separation, in which Barton argues that the United States was intended by its founders to be an explicitly Christian nation and that this history has been overwritten by a conspiracy of secular humanists during the latter half of the twentieth century. Part of his argument is a reinterpretation of the language of civic piety, which Barton couples with more sectarian statements to bolster his intentionality claim. Bartons attempt to reconstitute the nation as normatively Christian by means of national myths, civil religion, and national narratives, presents rhetorical scholars with a situation in which expressions of civic piety take on political significance beyond simply sanctioning the governments views. To those who accept Bartons worldview, civic piety now takes a position on a spectrum running from absolute sectarianism (reactionary) to absolute inclusion (liberal). The landscape of civic piety is thus seen as a contested space on which ideological battles are waged, rather than as a neutral and unifying force; sectarian statements are seen as statements of solidarity with the nations Christian heritage, while inclusive statements are seen as further attempts on the part of secular humanists to rewrite the history of the nation.