Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Showing posts with label BATS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BATS. Show all posts

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Blogging Against Secularism Weekend Draws to a Close

With the end of Easter Weekend, as far as I know the BATS are finished with their concerted effort to trash America's Christian heritage, the right of Christians to exercise their faith in the public square, and bash the non-existent theocracy in America.

The BATS were more active this time than they were when they bashed all these things on Independence Day 2007 and Easter 2007. Though their Friday effort got off to a slow start (I don't think any of their posts Friday had any substance at all, beyond "I hate Christianity in the public square"), some on Saturday actually had a bit of substance to them. Though they approached the issue with fundamentally flawed assumptions, a handful of the Saturday and a handful of the Sunday posts did at least contain references to some facts.

I do have to say, in all fairness though, that the five blogs participating in our little "counter-blog" which I called "Blogging Against Secularism" did very well in setting the record straight about America's Christian heritage, the proper and constitutional role of faith values in public policy, and the complete fallacy of what the BATS call "theocracy."

And we did it on short notice and over a weekend where we were all celebrating the resurrection of our savior and spending time with family.

I'd like to thank Ft. Hard Knox, Sibby Online, Ron's Musings and Voices Carry (and all the contributors at Dakota Voice: Carrie Hutchens, Dr. Ralph Hatcher and Mark Skogerboe) for stepping up to preserve the Constitutional and historical right and responsibility of Christians to lawfully influence public policy--as any constituency does--in the United States.

This right--and responsibility--is far too important to surrender because of some empty intimidation from some people who either don't understand history and civics, or don't care to.

In closing, I'd like to say that I concur with what Benjamin Franklin said during the meetings that produced the United States Constitution, when he reminded his colleagues of their need of prayer for God's guidance:

I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel...We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages

With the willingness of God's people to be the salt and light He's called us to be, and with His gracious Providence, that will not be the fate of the United States of America.


Sibby Online: God, the basis to our freedoms

In his book, "America, A Call to Greatness", John Chalfant tells about the involvement of the clergy during the founding of America, an involvement that is much needed today, not what Chalfant calls "The Abandonment Clergy" who have given in to the secularists (beginning on Page 32):

The clergy throughout the colonies searched the Scriptures and taught the people what God said about virtually every issue pertaining to their political freedoms...

To read more, go to Sibby Online.


Sibby Online: The separation myth

In his book, "Myths, Lies, & Half-Truths: How Misreading the Bible Neutralizes Christians", Gary Demar says this on page 185 from his chapter on the myth that "There is a Separation Between Church and State":

The fact that the United States Constitution ends with "in the year of our Lord" certainly refutes the notion of strict separationists that our Framers desired to separate all aspects of religion from government...

To read more, go to Sibby Online.


The Proper Role of Faith in Politics

For several decades now, there has been a civil war between the traditional Christian values of America, and those who want to see any influence of Christianity erased from the public square.

This war had been under way for quite a while before many Christians woke up to it, and many are still asleep.

While I have no doubt that there are those who understand but disregard the true nature of a "Christian America" and the role of faith in the public square, there are other who simply do not comprehend the difference between "theocracy" and the lawful, constitutional and proper role of faith in the public square. Consequently, some innocently oppose what they would otherwise support, if they only understood the difference.

Despite the settling of America for the purpose of advancing the Christian religion, and despite the founding of America on Christian principles, America has never, does not, and likely will never be ruled by a theocracy. I know of no one who is advocating America be run by theocracy.

Many Americans do, however, advocate a return to objective Christian values and Christian principles as the foundation for our laws and government; I count myself among that company.

As I said in a previous post, a theocracy is "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided."

Creating laws and government based on Christian principles, as was done during Colonial times, the creation of the United States government, and until recent years, does not constitute theocracy because (a) religious officials are not in charge, and (b) religious writings are not themselves the law.

Historically, America was settled by Christians who had a Christian worldview. That meant they not only held to the Christian religion, but those religious principles so informed their outlook on the world that everything they did was influenced by those Christian values. The Bible makes it clear that God created the entire universe, created what we call science, established human government, has guided human events through history, and that God's values are to be followed in every area of our lives.

Equally historically, as has been shown in numerous BATS articles this weekend, the Founders believed that Christian principles were of the utmost importance in shaping our societal values and even our laws and government operations. Yet at the same time, this has been accomplished without the establishment of a theocracy. How could this be?

Because ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, our government is made up of private individuals who bring with them to government service their personal values and priorities. The people also vote for their elected representatives and sometimes upon laws themselves, and they make decisions to vote "yes" or "no" based on their religious values. They do so because religious values are relevant not only within the four walls of a church, but in every area of the "real world."

Any religion that has no bearing on the "real world," including family, work, law and government, is an emasculated and useless religion. If something is true enough to believe for our eternal destiny, shouldn't it be reliable enough to tell us how to live in this temporary life on earth?

What some fail to understand--and rabid secularists refuse to acknowledge--is that America's historic status as a "Christian nation" is not based on any sort of theocracy or law or institute, but on the character of the nation--which is made up of the people.

If someone is truly interested in understanding the difference between theocracy and a society where religious values influence and inform public policy, one of the best sources is the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville.

de Tocqueville was a French historian who traveled America during the 1830s to find out what was behind the "magic" of this dynamic young country that was making such a splash on the world scene.

What he found was quite surprising, especially for someone who came from an old European power which had itself recently experienced a revolution--though a secular revolution.

From de Toqueville's Democracy in America:

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.

There was no law mandating worship of Christian or any other religion, no "state religion," and no theocracy. Yet de Toqueville found that Christianity and our government of freedom were "intimately united" and reigned together over the nation.

Was this a union brought about by theocracy or state religion? Not at all.
In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State.

Notice that he says religion does not directly dictate laws and public opinion, but it is a part of the character of the people who make up the community, and since the people make up the government in America, this is how Christianity helps shape our legal and governmental values.
Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country

de Toquevill reiterates that while there is no state religion or theocracy in America, because of the Christian character of the people who make up American government, it may be regarded "as the formost of the political institutions."

de Toqueville also says
...there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In America, de Toqueville found that, probably because religious allegiance was not forced upon the people by law, the Christian religion reigned supreme in its influence over men. In America, faith in God wasn't just duty, it was real. And because it was real, it influenced every area of their lives--including the civic life of the United States--again, a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

You see, America is historically a Christian nation not because of a theocracy, not because of a state religion, and not because of religious laws enforcing fealty to a religion...but because of the Christian character of the people who make up the United States--which has a government of those people possessed of a Christian character, by that people possessed of a Christian character, and for that people possessed of a Christian character.

This is why, as long as America successfully retains the Christian character of her people, there will never be a theocracy--of any type. And unless the Christians of America acquiesce to the demands of secularists, America will always retain that Christian character.

As de Tocqueville found and as many of the Founders alluded to, America's great freedom, including the freedom of religion, come from the Christian character of her people. While some over the history of the world have forgotten this, the Christians who settled America realized that true faith in God (and God wants none other than sincere faith) cannot be forced, it cannot be coerced, it cannot be mandated, and it cannot be legislated.

That is why the settlers and founders considered religious freedom so important, because only the free exercise of faith is worth anything to man or God. Some religions like Islam and secularism are willing to settle for silent acquiescence as a sign of devotion, but not true Christianity.

Even the unbeliever is free not to believe, so long as his unbelief doesn't lead him to subvert the laws or good character of society.

That freedom of belief--or even not to believe--is best guaranteed by the Christian character of America. Rabid secularism demands a suppression of the public expression of religious faith; because of this, it quashes freedom.

In a society protected by the Christian value of freedom of choice, the secularist is free to express his unbelief in public. No one can force him to believe in a deity, and no one can force him to profess belief...but if the majority of society believes in God, he should naturally be prepared for the dissent of others, as is their freedom.

In America, religious values and the reliance upon objective values must inform public policy, or public policy will devolve into "might makes right" and the tyranny of the majority. Religious values help preserve not only the health and good order of our civilization, but freedom itself.

As de Tocqueville says,
Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?

In summary, these religious values historically held in America inform public policy, not through theocracy or a state religion or the imposition of law, but through the character and values of the people who comprise government and who are being governed.


Saturday, March 22, 2008

The Faith of the Father of our Country

One of the favorite lies secularists love to tell in their efforts to undermine belief in America's Christian heritage (and by extension confidence that America should retain Christian values) is that the Founders were not Christians. We usually hear that most were deists.

I think I've provided more than ample evidence over the course of this weekend's BATS posts that these suppositions are complete fallacy, but I'd like to take a closer look at this claim in order to expose it's complete falsity.

The dictionary defines "deism" as "a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe."

Since Christians believe that God not only created the laws of the universe, but has been actively involved in those laws and the affairs of humans from the Garden of Eden to Christ's death for humans on the cross and will be involved to the very end as prophesied by the book of Revelation and other eschatological references, deism is incompatible with Christianity.

Let's take a look at just one of the Founders to see if these claims hold up.

Was George Washington a deist or a Christian?

When Washington was approached in 1779 by the Delaware Indians who wanted their children to be taught in American schools, he told them: in 1779

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, written by Benjamin Morris in the 19th Century and published by American Vision, says of Washington on page 338
He had no taste for war or desire for military glory. “My first wish,” said he, “is to see the whole world in peace..."

I saw this appreciation for peace from the General of the American Revolution when I visited Mount Vernon in October 2007. Washington had a weather vane in the shape of a dove (a symbol of peace) specially built for his Mt. Vernon home. Washington was not a man who enjoyed war, but obviously from his military service recognized that it was sometimes necessary in pursuit of things life freedom and safety.

The Christian Life also tells us about some of Washington's regulations for the Continental Army which he commanded. On page 338-339:
Art. 2.—It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend divine service...and all officers who shall behave indecently at any place of divine worship shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a general courtmartial, there to be publicly and severely reprimanded...

Washington would not even condone profanity from his subordinates. From page 339:
ART. 3.—Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall use any profane oath or execration shall incur the penalties expressed in the foregoing article...

He commanded that the ships of the navy have chaplains on board to ensure (page 339) that
divine service be performed in a solemn and reverent manner twice a day, and a sermon preached on Sunday, unless bad weather or other extraordinary accidents prevent it; and that they come all, or as many of the ship’s company as can be spared from duty, to attend every performance of the worship of Almighty God.

A general order issued by General Washington on July 9, 1776 says
"General Washington hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live, and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. To the distinguished character of Patriot it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

In President Washington's inaugural address, he said
...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes...No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained...resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity...so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views

This statement leaves no doubt whatsoever that George Washington not only believed in God, but believed he was listening to our prayers and supplications, and was actively involved in the affairs of men.

Consider also the language of George Washington's thanksgiving proclamation:
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour...all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed...for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

Again, Washington sounds thoroughly convinced not only in God's existence, but in His willingness to interfere in the affairs of men--indeed, Washington says God has already done so, before and during the American Revolution.

When I visited Mt. Vernon a few months ago, I saw Washington's tomb. He was originally interred in a small family tomb, but left instructions in his will for a larger tomb for himself and his wife Martha. His will laid out the exact specifications for the tomb, and he was moved there after it was completed.

I noticed on the back wall of the tomb an inscription:

I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die
St. John XI 25,26.


Why would a deist, who doesn't believe God cares about men or their affairs, have had a verse not only referring to Jesus Christ, but to the resurrection promised by Jesus Christ, on his tomb?

When historian Jared Sparks was seeking information about George Washington's religious beliefs, and specifically whether he was indeed a Christian, Washington's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis wrote him a letter in which she said
He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]...I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6]...

Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country.

I visited Mount Vernon and the Alexandria, Virginia area about six months ago, and I remember the distance between Washington's church and Mt. Vernon. Today, on a modern highway, it's only a few minutes. However, 200 years ago, in a carriage over a dirt path, it would have been a considerable journey to make, there and back, each Sunday.

I also seem to recall, though I can't at the moment verify the reference, that Washington often avoided taking communion because he did not want people to think he was taking it for show or for political gain.

Those who claim George Washington was not a Christian are either profoundly uninformed, or are intentionally deceptive. Either way, they make this profession to their own disrepute and shame.



*The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, by Benjamin Morris, Published May 2007 by American Vision. Excerpts reprinted by written permission of the publisher.


Sibby Online: 3 secular reasons for “Under God”

William J. Federer’s book "Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God" says (starting on page 73):

America’s founders had a "deity-based" belief system.

Why? Because:

Your RIGHTS cannot be taken away by the government if they come from a power "higher" than the government – i.e. God...


To read more, go to Sibby Online.


Who Wants Theocracy?

Yesterday I wrote about Jefferson and the separation of church and state. Today I want to address the question of theocracy more directly. As I mentioned yesterday, there are many on the left who seem to believe that the religious right really wants to institute a theocracy in America. Nothing could be further from the truth! I’m sure there is an insignificant minority who really would like theocracy but being insignificant, they really don’t need to be dealt with in any significant way.

For the overwhelming majority of evangelicals and anyone on the religious right, what we want is what the First Amendment guarantees. We want to exercise our religious beliefs without government interference. But because freedom of religion has been reinterpreted to mean freedom from religion, that has become increasingly difficult to do.

I was a double major in college. My majors were political science and religion. Typically people looked at me like a grew two heads when I told them this...

To read more, go to Ron's Musings.


Myth 1: Atheists Are Smarter

Part of a Series

BY Legionary Father Thomas D. Williams

It is a common myth of our day, not surprisingly propagated by atheists, that religious believers are undereducated folk who have abandoned the use of reason in favor of blind faith.

So in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that because of the religious belief of its citizens, the United States appears to the rest of the world “like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant.”

It is not surprising, in fact, that two of the most prominent neo-atheistic authors, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are British, representing an island known in our day for its religious indifference.

I have lived in Europe for 17 years, and there is no question that Americans’ unapologetic religiosity makes Europeans uncomfortable.

Yet many eminent thinkers throughout our history, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have interpreted religious conviction to be America’s greatest strength.

To read more, go to National Catholic Register .


Why America Was Colonized

When we examine the Christian heritage of America, there are any number of points in history we could examine. Though the Christian character of the American people is waning in this age of secularization, we have been a predominately Christian culture since the very beginning.

There is a wealth of information available to illustrate the Christian character of the Founders of the United States, and we see much of it quoted in Christian patriotic circles (including this site). But what about all the way back, to the beginning of the Colonial period?

Here are some excerpts from the Virginia Charter of 1606:

James, by the grace of God [King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith], etc...Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religion...

So we see that one of the purposes of the Virginia Charter and the Jamestown Colony was the propagation of the Christian religion.

When the Plymouth Colony was established in 1620, drew up their first governing document, the famous Mayflower Compact. What does this document say about the religion, character and purpose of these settlers:
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.

What were the first two reasons given for the establishment of the Plymouth Colony? The glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.

The Charter of Pennsylvania was granted by
CHARLES the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith...

One of the reasons specified in the charter was to bring to the Natives of America "Love of Civil Societie and Christian Religion."

One of the reasons cited for the Charter of Carolina was "pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith." The charter also makes other references to God.

The Charter of Connecticut mentions the purpose to "invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true GOD, and He Saviour of Mankind, and the Christian Faith..."

The Charter of Maryland was given to Lord Baltimore for his "pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion." The charter, like other charters, makes several references to the authority and providence of God.

The Charter of Massachusetts Bay mentions reliance upon God in carrying out the charter, with a purpose to introduce the Natives "to the KnowIedg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Saulor of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth."

The Charter of New England in 1620 was granted "in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty." It also contains many other references to the Christian faith and God's providence.

The Charter of Rhode Island mentions the providence and blessings of God, and the free exercise of "the true Christian ffaith and worshipp of God" and to "invite the native Indians of the countrie to the knowledge and obedience of the onlie true God, and Saviour of mankinde."

The Charter of Georgia guarantees "liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God" and "free exercise of their religion." Some of the early settlers in Georgia said their purpose in coming was "not to gain riches and honor, but singly this,—to live wholly to the glory of God” and “to make Georgia a religious colony, having no theory but devotion, no ambition but to quicken the sentiment of piety.”

The 1701 Charter of Delaware listed religious freedom prominently:
Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting In this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and professes him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion.

These are the most prominent references to God and Christianity in the original colonial charters, but you will find references to God in all of the founding colonial documents.

It boggles the mind that someone could be aware of the Christian faith and character of the colonial settlers and manage to insist that America's origins are not Christian.


The American Experiment

What follows below are my notes from a recent Truth Project seminar on “The American Experiment: Stepping Stones.”

I had intended to transcribe these notes electronically as I do most of the time with Truth Project lessons, but since I knew the Easter BATS was coming up, I decided to wait and publish these notes at that time. After all, this lesson addresses well the Christian roots of America, and how our laws and government have been founded on a Christian worldview and Christian principles…without implementing a theocracy.
-------------------------------

The writings and statements of the Founders leaves no doubt to the mind willing to entertain truth that almost all were Christians, and virtually every one had a Christian worldview, regardless of how public they were in their expressions of faith.

They realized that the welfare of a civilization depends on morality, and that this new nation they had set up, based on freedom, was suitable and maintainable only by a virtuous people.

They believed that the state had to be accountable to a higher law, the “Natural Law” or the “Law of Nature’s God.” Only this could prevent the state from becoming all-powerful, accountable only to itself, and ending in the same kind of oppression from which the Founders had recently freed themselves.

The New England Primer was the second best selling book in the American colonies (the Bible was number one). It was first published around 1690. There were only four million people in America in 1776, yet 5 million copies had been sold at that time. This is the book used to teach children of that age to read and write.

The Primer used language and concepts that was not only familiar to the people of that time, but served the dual purpose of reinforcing the Christian values that parents were trying to inculcate upon their children:

A – In ADAM'S Fall We sinned all.
B - Heaven to find; The Bible Mind
C - Christ crucify'd For sinners dy'd.
D - The Deluge drown'd The Earth around. (yes, they were creationists, too)

It asked questions such as, Who was the first man, expecting the answer from the Bible: "Adam." And “Who was the oldest man,” expecting the answer from the Bible: "Methuselah." And “Who was the strongest man,” expecting “Sampson.”

It also asked more difficult questions like "Which is the Fourth commandment?" and an exposition in "What is required in the fourth commandment?"

It contains the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles Creed, and other theological items. In fact, the whole primer is pretty much 100% Christian theology.

I encourage you to read the entire text of the 1777 edition here. You can also find some images of the 1843 edition here (no significant changes).

As surprising as it may seem, knowing how anti-Christian the official positions of the National Education Association (NEA) are today, as recently as 1892 the NEA recognized the need for moral instruction in school, and the superior ability of Christianity to provide that instruction.

“…if the study of the Bible is to be excluded from all state schools, if the inculcation of the principles of Christianity is to have no place in the daily program; if the worship of God is to form no part of the general exercises of these public elementary schools; then the good of the state would be better served by restoring all schools to church control.” – Kansas State Historical Society, Columbian History of Education in Kansas (Topeka: Hamilton Printing Company, 1893), 82

It was mainly when John Dewey and his humanist philosophy took control of the education system that the worldview of our academic system began to change.
“…faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.” – John Dewey (Rondald Nash, The Closing of the American Heart: What’s Really Wrong with America’s Schools, United States: Probe Books, 1990, 91)

What an incredible change!

Did you know that even the universities known as “Ivy League” today were founded as seminaries and Bible colleges?

Harvard’s Rules and Precepts from 1636 said
“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore lay Christ at the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” – Josiah Quincy, LL, D., History of Harvard University (Boston: Crosby, Nichols, Lee, & Co., 1860), 515

Harvard’s original motto was “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” or “Truth for Christ and the Church.” (Samuel Eliot Morison, “Harvard Seals and Arms,” The Harvard Graduats’ Magazine, September 1933, 8)

In the 1746 founding statement of Princeton, it says, “Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the Cross of Christ.” (Mark A. Beliles & Stephen K. McDowell, America’s Providential History, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 1989,111)

In the Columbia University Seal can be found “Yahweh” at the top, written in Hebrew, Psalm 36:9 in Latin (“In thy light we see light”), on the ribbon it says “Psalm 27:1” (“God is my light”) in Hebrew, and on the lower part of the seal is “1 Peter 2:1-2” which admonishes us to desire the pure milk of God’s word.” (David C. Humphrey, From King’s College to Columbia, 1746-1800, New York: Columbia University Press,1976, 107)

When we look at the writings and sentiments of the Founders, we see the same Christian worldview carrying over from Colonial times to the birth of the country.

Gouverneur Morris said, “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”

Samuel Adams said, “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, united their endeavours to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”

Benjamin Rush said, “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.”

Noah Webster said, “In my view, the Christian Religion is the most import and and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Even the Northwest Ordinance, one of the nation’s first important statutes, says in Article III: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” – July 13, 1787.

The instructor of the Truth Project, Dr. Del Tackett, says that he first began to see through the popular lie that America had been founded a secular country when he was called to a meeting with the president.

While in Washington, D.C. he saw some of the art in the rotunda of the Capitol Building. There was the “Landing of Columbus” which illustrated Christopher Columbus (“Christopher” meaning “One who bears Christ”) landing in the New World, a place he set out for to advance the glory of God.

Tackett also saw “The Baptism of Pocahontas” in the Capitol, along with “The Embarkation of the Pilgrims” which showed the Pilgrims on the deck of the Speedwell holding a religious service. Tackett realized that all these events in America’s history were “profoundly Christian.”

The “transitional moment” for Tackett in his realization and acceptance that America had been founded a Christian nation came when he went to a reenactment of George Washington’s Farewell Address, given by the first president at the end of his tenure as president.

In the address, Tackett heard the words of George Washington saying, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

But Washington was not alone in these sentiments. In a letter to Zabdiel Adams, John Adams, our second president, said, “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

Adams also said, "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Also, Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "...the only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." Benjamin Rush also started the first anti-slavery organization in the country; aren't we glad he wasn't afraid to let his religious beliefs inform his public policy positions?

Rush also said, "Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy."

Charles Carroll, another signer of the Declaration of Independence, said, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Patrick Henry, the first governor of Virginia and one of the most ardent advocates of independence, said, "The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible."

Even Benjamin Franklin, one of the least religious of the founders, said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Another of the Founders, Noah Webster, a lawyer and Yale graduate who is famous for his dictionary, said, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws.… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

A few short decades after the founding of the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian, traveled across America to find out what was so amazing about this dynamic new country. What did he find that made America such a great nation? The breadth and depth of the nation's Christian faith.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.

de Toqueville also points out that it was the Christian worldview which which drove the notions of liberty that gave birth to the United States:
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.

Was this incredible Christian influence that de Toqueville saw in America established by way of a theocracy? Not at all! It was in the character of the citizens, which make up the "we the people" that forms our government:
In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State.

He also said, "Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so.”

Another of the early statesmen, Daniel Webster, who served in the U.S. House and Senate and as Secretary of State, said, “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.”

This Truth Project lesson also revisits a concept examined in a previous lesson: that according to Romans 13, the purpose of the civil magistrate is to (1) punish evil and (2) condone good. In order to do this, the civil authority must be able to recognize both good and evil. In order to recognize it, the authority must know the basis for calling something good or evil.

On of the Founding Documents points to the source for understanding the basis for calling something good or evil: the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration begins by pointing to certain foundational truths, and says of them and their source:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Notice that these rights do not come from government, but from God. And government has been instituted by God to secure these rights for the governed.

The Declaration also says the people are entitled to these rights and good government by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

To understand what is meant by the "laws of nature," we look to writings of the time. Sir Edward Coke, a jurist of the late 16th and early 17th Centuries whose writings on English law were standard reading for several hundred years, said
The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction, ... the moral law, called also the law of nature.

Sir William Blackstone was another prominent English jurist. His legal works, the Commentaries on the Laws of England written from 1765–1769, were the "gold standard" of jurisprudence in that age. Blackstone said of the law of nature:
...man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

On the basis of all laws, Blackstone said
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

This understanding passed on through the American Colonial period and into the life of the American republic.

James Wilson was a signer of the Declaration, a member of the Continental Congress, was greatly involved in the construction of the Constitution, and was one of the original Supreme Court justices appointed by President George Washington.

He said
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine .... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.

So if the people and leaders of the United States had such an understanding of the source and nature of law, where did things go so wrong? Where did our nation go adrift and become a people where the popular sentiment is that religion should have no influence on law or government whatsoever?

You may recall that Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of Species" in 1859, which quickly became embraced by the scientific community as a viable explanation of our origins which "freed" us from the Christian explanations embraced by the Western world for nearly 2,000 years.

This philosophy quickly worked its way not only into the discipline of science but also law. In 1869 Charles Eliot, a believer in Darwin's theory, became president of Harvard University, the nation's premier law school. The next year, he brought Christopher Columbus Langdell, another disciple of Darwin, to head Harvard Law School.

Langell brought an "evolutionary" perspective to law:
Law, considered as a science, consists of certain principles or doctrines...Eachof these doctrines has arrived at its present state by slow degrees; in other words, it is a growth, extending in many cases through centuries. This growth is to be traced in the main through a series of cases...

John Chipman Gray, a law scholar of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, tells us that the "God standard" of law has been abandoned:
“The law is a living thing, with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.”

Herbert Titus said of Landgell in God, man, and law: The Biblical principles
Landgell did not merely introduce a new method of teaching law, he introduced a new faith concerning law. He believed that man, led by the ablest scholars and judges, could discover and determine the laws governing human affairs. Because he believed that man did not need the aid of God and of the Holy Scripture...

This philosophy marks the rise of legal positivism. Legal positivism can be defined as "The claim that the state is the ultimate authority for creating, interpreting and enforcing law. All legal truth is based on the decision of the state."

Titus also provides this insight:
“...Langdell sought to eliminate both from legal education—not by default, but by design. He, along with president Eliot, had embraced the new faith that swept the academic world in the latter 1800’s—that Darwin’s theory of evolution was the key to all of life, including the law.”

Yet the people of America originally considered faith in God very important in public officials.

Article 22 of the original Deleware Constitution says that all officials will make the following declaration:
"I, ___________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; And I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."

If the people were going to entrust the "power of the sword" to a civil magistrate, they wanted to be sure he was subject to a higher moral authority than himself--to God and His laws.

Despite the assertion by some today that America was founded by secularists on a secular foundation, one of the least religious of the Founders contradicts that lie.

From Benjamin Franklin:
“…how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?...I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel...We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future agesI therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…”

And so it was that one of the least religious of the Founders began the tradition of prayers to open public business, in Congress and many other governmental institutions across the country.

Where could it lead, if our country completely abandons the "God standard" for our government, and for what we require of our laws and leaders? We need only look to the bloody, abysmal history of Russia, especially under Soviet atheism.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Templeton Address of 1983
More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’

“Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...

...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’

We can ignore history and the wisdom of the Founders. We can ignore the design for which this nation was intended to operate. We can even ignore God himself.

But if we do so, we would do well to consider Solzhenitsyn's words. For we would do so not only at our own peril, but our own ruination.


Friday, March 21, 2008

Crusade to Establish State Religion to Oppress Visible Signs of Religion

Once upon a time, people flocked to a new land called America, where they could escape from religious persecution and oppression. True... religious groups might band together in the new land and form individual communities meant more so for people with like beliefs and ways, but the country itself did not have a single religion that all were required to participate in or not participate in. The Founding Fathers seemed to wish to enhance the freedom of religion and made clear no government was to establish a religion and force others to take part in it or any other religion for that matter. This is something too many seem to have forgotten along the way.

To demand that no word, action or visible sign of religion be apparent, is nothing different than a demand that all people participate in a specific religion regardless of the individual preference. It is a demand that is taking us back to the old countries and the persecution and oppression people sought relief from. It is a violation of the First Amendment, no matter how one tries to address it in defense of their so-called separation of church and state argument.

It is one thing if a child is forced to participate in a religious Christmas pageant, and quite another to deny all children the pageant because it might be offensive to the one that doesn't even have to be exposed to it. (By the way, that is forcing that child's religious beliefs upon the other children.)

How about the religion that doesn't believe in celebrations of any kind, including birthdays? Does that mean that all children have to give up their birthdays so as not to offend that one child that doesn't even have to be exposed? (By the way, that is forcing that child's religious beliefs upon the other children.)

What appears to be happening is an anti-religious crusade that is suggesting no visibility of religion should be allowed anywhere besides church and behind closed doors. It appears to be suggesting that people must hide any sign they even believe thereby demanding they agree to a modern day persecution and oppression. Of course, this isn't just a matter of religion -- it is happening in many areas of our lives.

It is amazing how some are fighting to remove religion from the view of any, while insisting on bringing sex into the view of all -- including our young children. How upside down this world and our thought has become. How upside down indeed!


Protecting Life Isn't Just a Religious Value

One of the most common areas of public policy where you'll hear liberals and secularists protest the interjection of religious values is in protecting life.

Whether it's protecting unborn human life, or the lives of those some consider "not worth living," citing a transcendent religious value as a reason not to end innocent human life is sure to get the Left frothing at the mouth.

In fact, respect for human life was a key reason behind the formation of a Leftwing secularist organization going under the deceptive title of "South Dakota Mainstream Coalition."

According to a report by David Kranz in the Argus Leader, executive director Senator Ed Olson of Mitchell said that the battle over the life and death of Terri Schiavo was the catalyst for the formation of the group. The same article also quoted Olson as saying, "Many of us don't like the idea of putting specific religious beliefs into state law."

"Specific religious beliefs" shouldn't be in the law? That's an interesting statement that, while you'd probably get quite a few people agreeing with it, I don't think many people have really thought through.

Imagine for a few moments what American civilization would be like if we removed some of these "specific religious beliefs" from our laws.

How about murder in general? That's a pretty specific religious belief. The Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah both state in Exodus 20:13 (in what is commonly known as the Ten Commandments--the same Ten Commandments found in many court houses across the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court) "You shall not murder." The Christian Bible also condemns it in Matthew 15:19, right beside some other "specific religious beliefs" such as adultery, sexual immorality, theft, perjury, and slander. Hmmm. Should we throw out our murder laws because they are founded on "specific religious beliefs?"

How about another of those "specific religious beliefs" mentioned there in Matthew 15:19: theft. That one is mentioned in several places in the Bible and the Torah, too, including Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal." Wow! That's another one of those nasty Ten Commandments. Shall we throw out our laws against theft because they're based on "specific religious beliefs?" If you think so, please send me your address and an inventory of your household contents; I could use some new furniture.

Slander? That's another one of those pesky "specific religious beliefs" mentioned in Matthew 15:19 and, lo and behold, the Ten Commandments again: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

How about some perjury? We didn't think it was a big deal when Bill Clinton did it, right? After all, it's just another of those silly "specific religious beliefs" which is brother to "perjury." What? You say Scooter Libby perjured himself, and we need to prosecute that perjury? Okay, so maybe perjury can stay, despite being based on "specific religious beliefs."

I could go on, but I think I've adequately made the point. With the exception of a handful of legal areas (maybe term limits, some tax law, etc.), almost all of our laws are based on a bunch of "specific religious beliefs." Does that somehow invalidate them?

For those who find religious values cumbersome and unpleasant, remember that moral choices usually have "real world" consequences, and they usually affect other people. God wasn't trying to be a fuddy-duddy when he told us what was right and what was wrong; he was trying to warn us away from harm and heartache.

So why should a Christian or religious origin automatically invalidate efforts to restrict abortion or save disabled people from being killed for convenience? Value for innocent human life is a universal value shared not only Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu and pretty much every religious belief--including secular humanism--that you can think of.

I think what secularists are referring to when they say they don't want to see religious beliefs in law or influencing laws is that they don't want to see religious beliefs that interfere with their pursuit of convenience or sexual license.

And that's okay if pursuing convenience or sexual license is what they want...well, not okay with God and maybe not okay with any other people affected by it, but within the context of public debate, that's okay to consider.

But if you're going to argue for it, you should be up front about why you want it and why you think it should be a good idea.

And Christians (and other people of faith) shouldn't allow themselves to be cowed or intimidated out of the public debate by lies based on an incorrect assumption that our government is supposed to be kept sanitized of religious values.

If that assumption were correct, why would the Founders have severely restricted the power of government (remember, the Constitution limits government, not people) to "prohibit the free exercise" of religion?

Why else would our first president, George Washington, have told the people of America in his Farewell Address:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

Morality is necessary to a healthy society; otherwise there is widespread and wanton lawlessness; disregard for law, institutions and the persons and property of others. Without it life becomes very dangerous, and an ordered civilization is not possible.

Why else would have Washington continued in his Farewell Address to tie religion and morality in close relationship:
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

Religion has every right, indeed every obligation, to speak to public policy matters of such great importance as human life. There is no greater priority than the preservation of innocent human life.

Why else would the Founders have listed "life" first among those famous "certain unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It might be said that each these unalienable rights in this list can be safely enjoyed only once the earlier items has been secured. (In other words, liberty is more important than the pursuit of happiness, and life is even more precious than liberty).

Life is, after all, created in the image of God, and is therefore sacred. Even if you don't honor this religious value, everyone can recognize that each human life is completely and totally unique; once it is extinguished, there will never ever be another like it. To view innocent human life with a cavalier attitude is the height of hubris and recklessness.

If a civilization comes to the point where it has no respect or regard for innocent human life, that is a civilization on the brink of chaos and collapse. And in a world as dangerous as ours--where many already have contempt for these values of life--I don't think we want American civilization to collapse and leave us defenseless before the bloodthirsty.


Ron's Musings: American Theocracy?

From time to time you hear from someone or other who claims America is becoming a theocracy. Many believe the religious right controls the Republican Party and wants to institute theocracy in America. I have little patience for such rhetoric simply because it is demonstrably false.

Many of these same accusers love to tout "separation of church and state" and its hallowed place in the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution nowhere contains anything like separation of church and state but that is no deterrent to the disciples of the philosophy...

To read more, go to Ron's Musings.


First Principles, Part 1

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House has written a small book called “Rediscovering God in America.” In this easy to read, informational best-seller we are informed of the beliefs and temperament of the Founding Fathers when laying the foundation of the fledgling United States of America. The task was no small undertaking. It involved thinking “out of the box,” though that idiom had yet to be coined. All previous governments, certainly in the West, had been organized around a monarch, some benevolent, some not so much. In most cases the king or queen was held as appointed by God as their ruler and so had the absolute authority to rule as they wished. The monarch was the source of any rights and privileges that the people enjoyed and these were subject to suspension or revision on the whim of the king. The idea of a basic individual right was novel and yet to be truly exercised until the time of the Declaration of Independence. Further, there were few responsibilities of the monarch toward his subjects, except in so far as they benefited the king and his court.

The exceptionalism of our country rests upon the assertion that all rights come from God bestowed on each individual; this is the “first principle.” These rights, as enumerated in our founding documents, are granted by our Creator and cannot be amended or suspended except by a legal process specified in the Constitution that is designed to help maintain order and security for all citizens and guarantee the God-given rights to all law-abiding citizens.

Was it a nebulous, figurative “god” or God, Jehovah of the Bible that the founders thanked and appealed to in the Declaration of Independence and other central documents? All the evidence is for the latter. Most of the framers of our government were unabashed, practicing Christian men, though some, like Jefferson and Franklin expressed some philosophical doubts in some of their writings. Even so, they recognized that the American experiment could only be validated by asserting God-given rights, thus subordinating government to the people. Neither Franklin or Jefferson ever claimed to be anything other than Christian.

If you search “separation of church and state” you will find numerous sites devoted to the “constitutional principle” of a “wall of separation of church and state.” Most readers of this blog are already aware that there is no such article or wording stated in the Constitution, yet there are innumerable organizations that will have you believe that it is the foundational principle of the Constitution. (The origins of the phrase are explained in this short piece by Robert Meyer at Renew America.) The “wall of separation” was used in a context virtually opposite of how it is currently used, in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists reassuring them that there could never be a religion sanctioned by the federal government. The Baptists were fearful that Methodists and Congregationalists (majority denominations) might become favored and too influential in civil matters in Connecticut. Jefferson purposefully did not address the Baptists' fear of state intrusion in religious matters.

But those wishing to eliminate any trace of our Christian heritage are determined to revise history and claim that the founders were mostly atheists (e.g., Franklin) or, at best, Deists (e.g., Jefferson), but at any rate they most assuredly were not Christians of the “born again” variety. Jefferson, Hancock, Madison, Franklin, et al didn’t take this God-talk seriously but used such language as a form of embellished rhetoric common at the time, such as “purple mountains majesty,” in which case the mountains aren’t really purple, are they?

Rediscovering God in America” takes a close look at the beliefs of several of the founding fathers as expressed in their many letters and writings. Next, the reader is taken on a walking tour of several sites in Washington, DC including the Jefferson Memorial, the U.S. Capital and the Supreme Court, and others, and the expressly Judeo-Christian symbols and engraved words are pointed out and explained. Examples of the Christian references in writing and in the buildings and monuments of Washington will be the topic in Part 2 of this post.


The Founders and their Republic Were Christian

ALL OF THE 55 SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS EXCEPT THOMAS FITZSIMMONS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DAVID CARROL OF MARYLAND WHO WERE CATHOLICS; AND THE GENIUS, BEN FRANKLIN WHO HAS BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED OF BEING A DEIST.

The Deists believe in a prime mover who is no longer involved in the affairs of men.

The greatest miracleof Philadelphia in 1787 was when Ben Franklin correctly observed that "unless God builds a house, those who build, labor in vain"; he also pointed out the active and miraculous intervention of Almighty Creator God in the impossible victory over the strongest army and navy on earth. After these and other declarations of Faith and Bible verses..old Ben said, "Mr. President(the smiling George Washington)I move that we began each days deliberations with prayer!"

Only a belief in the depraved and selfish nature of man could have conceived of a government to protect the subjects from those who held the power. Every founding member was familiar with Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". THIS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THE ABSURD NOTIONS OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST THAT NUT CASE DARWIN FOISTED ON US AND CAUSED THE KILLING OF MILLIONS OF JEWS.

EVERY TIME TRUE, LOVING, HUMBLE CHRISTIANITY IS THE FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC POLICY, THE LEAST POWERFUL LIKE THE OLD, WIDOWS; AND THE UNBORN ARE DEFENDED...and when darwinism is served...suffering and cruelty always follows!!!

JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD OTHERWISE THERE COULD BE NO AMERICA...ONLY A DEPRAVED WORLD.

HE IS RISEN INDEED...MARK THE FREEDOM POET


Religion Not Allowed Attitude Defies 1st Amendment

The constitution makes it quite clear that forcing a specific religion upon the people is not allowed. In other words, people in power are not allowed to pick the church of their choice and force it upon the population. The First Amendment does make it clear that people have freedom of choice -- the freedom to choose and express their religious beliefs. How then can any suggest that religion is not allowed?

For any to suggest there is a movement towards theocracy in this country, would appear to be the results of boredom and a "let's pretend such and such is happening and we have to save the world by convincing the people it is bad" game. It would certainly be difficult to believe it was anything more.

Threat of theocracy in this country?

Prayer was taken out of the classroom. Lawsuits have been brought simply because a child was told (something to the effect) to be quiet during quiet-time because it was a time for prayer and reflection. Some schools can no longer decorate and have Christmas pageants (that had been long-time traditions) because it is offensive to non-believers. And so on and so on.

With the trend to remove anything even remotely resembling religion being stripped all around us, we are to then believe that religion is actually over-powering and threatening a "take-over" the government? Rather a far jump from reality to such a possibility in the minds of any.

The irony to the situation as it now exists is that the First Amendment granted freedom of religion -- freedom to practice (or not) the religion of one's choice. However, the anti-religion fighters have actually stripped people of that freedom, rather than claiming the freedom for itself had not been adequately (and equally) enforced.

Rather than to demand a child not be forced to participate in something religious, because it is that child's right not to -- it was a demand to deny the other children (that wish to participate) and thereby deny their right to freedom of religion. Even a moment of silence has been challenged, because one said something such as "prayer & reflection" or because it is simply implied it is actually a moment of prayer.

Mention of Jesus is not allowed in speeches even by students? Where is the freedom of speech? One may, after all, talk against the influence of religion in government. So rather than religion being forced upon people -- there are those who are adamantly working to force anything religious, whether by word, action or symbol, to be taken behind closed doors, least it taint and offend the non-believers. Never mind that the non-believers are actually forcing (against the First Amendment) their religious beliefs upon others. Forcing! Imposing!

The possibility of theocracy in this country? Only if it is the religion of not believing in religion!


Voices Carry: It's impossible to separate church and state

Who are we kidding, it is absolutely relevant what Sen. Barack Obama's church teaches and that his spiritual advisor is black liberationist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like gives birth to like. Though many tried to dismiss it several months ago, it was centrally important for the electorate to know the full story behind Mitt Romney's Mormonism. (Mormon salvation is that each man becomes a god of his own planet and spends eternity populating it with spirit babies - Mormon women can look forward to being eternally pregnant.)

Hypothetically, do we really think that electing a candidate with a pacifistic Mennonite or Quaker background would have no bearing on their ability to fulfill the role of Commander and Chief?...

To read more, go to Voices Carry.


Ft. Hard Knox: (Moon)BATs want Freedom FROM Religion

The “Freedom from Religion Foundation,” which boasts on its web page that it is, “…an educational association of non-believers and secularists, (which) has been working since 1978 to keep state and church separate…” has posted a list of reasons the United States of America is not a Christian Nation.

Well, no, that’s exactly true...

To read more, go to Ft. Hard Knox.


Why Are There Tax Code Restrictions on Churches?

Given the current tax code restrictions on churches with regard to their tax exempt status, coupled with the myopic view of our society (e.g. what is, always was) it may be easy to understand how some people could develop the misperception that churches should have no involvement in the political process, even that such a supposition is a foundational American idea.

In reality, the opposite is true.

From the very foundations of America, faith and religion has played a vital role in civil government. We look back to the Mayflower Compact as the first governing document of colonial America. Yet we should not forget that this governing document, this early constitution, was drawn up by a profoundly Christian people with profoundly Christian influence.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

Notice the reason the colony was being founded: "for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith."

Most of the colonial charters contained similar language, in that the stated purpose of the colony was for the glory of God, advancement of Christianity, and other such sentiments.

Even into the period of the American Revolution, America remained a profoundly Christian nation. Not only did the Founders declare the independence of this nation based on the revelation "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."; they called upon the "protection of Divine Providence" to make this independence come to fruition.

Many of the clergy were involved in the move for independence and carrying out the war for independence. The wrongs of the crown and the rightness of freedom were often preached from the pulpits. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, was a minister, and several others had been involved in the Christian ministry in some form or another.

Christians were also at the forefront of the abolitionist movement which sought the abolition of slavery. They saw from the Bible that all human beings were equal before God, without regard for skin color, ethnicity or national origin.

Christians were again involved in the civil rights movement, to guarantee the fulfillment of the freedom and equality obtained by the abolitionists and the blood of all those spilled in the Civil War.

So if Christians should have no involvement in public policy, if Christian values should have no influence on public policy, then America would be a very different place...if it even existed at all.

The current restriction on churches which prevents them from endorsing candidates do not come from the Constitution; they are not based on the First Amendment, or even a misrepresentation of the doctrine of "separation of church and state."

They came about in 1954 when Senator Lyndon B. Johnson was being criticized for his liberal policies. He came up with the current restrictions and succeeded in getting them passed into law, restricting nonprofit organizations from speaking for or against candidates.

Despite these restrictions, churches can still speak out for and against laws being considered. They can hold voter registration drives, circulate petitions for or against laws, and can advocate or oppose laws from the pulpit. Churches can't use more than 5-15% of their total resources on such efforts, but much is possible within those parameters. In fact, if a church considered an issue important enough to give up its tax exempt status, it could do so with full freedom to utilize all of its resources, with no legal prohibition whatsoever.

Why should churches be involved in the shaping of public policy? Because most matters of public policy are moral in nature.

There may be some issues that have no moral connection or limited moral connection. For instance, I see no direct moral position on whether term limits should be adopted. The case might be made that term limits or the absence thereof may have subsequent moral consequences, but I see no direct moral result from having them or not.

But things like abortion (murder), marriage (a moral contract between a man and a woman; the safe, proper expression of human sexuality, etc.; the basic foundation of our culture), gambling (violation of a healthy work ethic, danger to the welfare of families, crime resulting from addiction, etc.), crime and punishment and so on are things to which the Bible speaks, and every major religion speaks to some extent.

Just as speed limits apply on our streets whether we like them or not, so most public policy has moral consequences, whether secularists like that or not.

It is the duty of Christians and the church to speak out on the truth of these matters, for the welfare of society; they have no power--without the majority consent of the governed--to force this morality on the country, but they have a duty to make electoral decisions be morally informed decisions.

In fact, Jesus Christ commanded his followers to serve as a beacon of truth in a world that's lost it's way. He told his people:
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

Any Christian who does not challenge false assumptions when confronted with them in the public square is derelict in his Christian responsibility.

This responsibility in the public square is not just something that church people dreamed up to interject their morality; it was once recognized as essential by our civic leaders.

This nation's first president, George Washington, said in his Farewell Address at the end of his presidency:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens...Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...

...It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government...

...Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue?

He also said
"We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."

John Adams, the second president of the United States, said
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

Even Thomas Jefferson, one of the least orthodox in his faith, said
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Another of the few least religious of the founders, Benjamin Franklin, recognized the need for virtue in our civilization and public life:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

In summary, the current tax code restrictions on churches involve endorsements of candidates only; they do not prohibit a church from supporting a public measure with moral implications.

The current restrictions also do not spring from a Constitutional source, but the petty actions of a politician 50 years ago who wanted to silence his enemies.

America has a rich tradition of Christian involvement in the public square, and it has been long recognized that such involvement is vital to the health of our republic.

I heard it said that the church is not the servant of the state, and the state is not the servant of the church. But the church is the conscience of the state.

Just as a person can disregard the pleadings of their conscience, no matter how passionate those pleadings may be, so may a state ignore the pleadings of the church for moral solutions, ultimately to national peril.


What is Theocracy?

Well, the BATS are back at it again this Easter.

You might recall that last Easter, a group of secularist bloggers started a blogswarm to "Blog Against Theocracy." At first I assumed they would be blogging against the ancient nation of Israel, or perhaps some Muslim countries, but I quickly realized they were blogging against something that didn't exist in America and wasn't being worked for in America...yet they wanted people to believe it was.

I use the term BATS because the whole concept of "Blogging Against Theocracy" in a country where there has never been theocracy, is no theocracy, and is no move to institute theocracy is quite silly. Thus, BATS: Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness.

This group of misguided souls believes that any influence of religious faith in the public square constitutes "theocracy." They believe theocracy is manifested in things like teaching creationism, defending the human life of disabled people like Terri Schiavo, defending unborn children, maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and any expression of faith in the public square or acknowledgement of the Christian heritage of America.

And though the group claimed they have nothing against Christianity, they chose to have this "Blog Against Theocracy" on Easter, the most sacred holiday in Christianity.

Then they had another on Independence Day, the day this nation was founded by a Christian people who recognized certain truths:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And these founders did so

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

And now, for the second Easter in a row, they again "Blog Against Theocracy." If this is an indication that they bear no ill will toward Christianity, I would hate to see their definition of hostility."

While carrying on this activity at Easter is highly disrespectful of the 82% of Americans who identify with Christianity, still, I welcome the opportunity to address such misconceptions and distortions of the role of religion in America.

As we did last year, Dakota Voice and others will stand against this error to set the record straight. If error is allowed to stand unchallenged, it becomes accepted as truth. The things against which the BATS rail(a) do not constitute theocracy, (b) do not violate the Constitution, and (c) are perfectly reasonable in our free society, and necessary to it's good health and maintenance.

But before we begin to examine some of these fallacious assumptions and point to the truth, we should examine exactly what "theocracy" is so that we have a proper understanding of the subject matter.

A "theocracy" is defined as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided."

"Immediate" is defined as "acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency" or "present to the mind independently of other states or factors."

Therefore, a theocracy would have to be the government of a state by divine guidance or those regarded as divinely guided (i.e. a pastor, priest or other holy figure), which has no other consideration or object than obedience to a deity. In other words, their foremost and overriding concern must be that the commands of the deity are adhered to.

The Encarta Encyclopedia refers to "theocracy" with the Greek root of the word theokratia, meaning “government by a god”. As examples it refers to Old Testament Israel, Muslim communities, and modern-day Iran.

Wikipedia also sheds light on the meaning of "theocracy" and provides several examples. The United States is not found among them.

Since in the United States our leaders are elected by a majority vote of the people, there are no appointments of holy figures to ensure religious doctrine is adhered to. Further, most do not even come from an officially religious background.

The oath of office taken by United States leaders also indicates that their primary objective is not to ensure compliance with religious directives. Instead, it states that their primary concern and obligation is to respect and implement our United States Constitution.

Consider the oath of office taken by congressmen:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Note that their first obligation is to "support and defend the Constitution," and to be true to the Constitution and hold allegiance to it. There is no reference of allegiance to a religious deity or code or creed. The only reference to divinity in the oath is where the oath is affirmed with an appeal for help from God in carrying out that oath, and an implicit accountability before God if the oath-taker breaks the oath.

The president takes his oath as prescribed by Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


And since George Washington added "So help me God," that tradition has been carried on by U.S. presidents.

Again, you will note that the highest priority of the president is to carry out the duties of his office and safeguard the U.S. Constitution. Other than the same appeal to God for help, there is no hint of theocracy.

We have seen theocracies in world history, and there are theocracies in the world now, primarily in the Muslim world.

At the end of the day, there has never been a theocracy in America, despite America having been a far more religious culture in the past than it is today. In fact, the farther back you go, the more the character of our culture was overtly Christian. Yet you find no theocracy.

And today you find no theocracy. Our government is not run by pastors and priests, nor is anyone advocating it be run by pastors and priests. Nor do we see anyone wanting to do away with the Constitution and replace it with the Holy Bible.

We do, however, see a number of people who feel threatened by Christian values and the Christian worldview. We see many people who would rather the Christian faith remain within the walls of the church and never escape into the "real world" Monday-Saturday.

They want to live their lives the way they want without ever being confronted when they're wrong. Being rebuked when you're wrong offends, but there is no right not-to-be-offended in the Constitution.

They want unhindered freedom to build a secular world where God, the Bible and Christians have no relevance or influence. The Constitution provides no such right; if secularists want such a world, they should work for it the way every policy group does--and do so without resorting to the fake boogeyman of "theocracy" fear mongering.


Several of the writers at Dakota Voice will spend some of their precious Easter time this weekend, again refuting the implication that the Christian influence of individual citizens somehow constitutes a violation of the doctrine of "separation of church and state" or constitutes "theocracy."

Additionally, some other blogs, also concerned about the encroachment of secularism and the silencing of faith will join us this weekend. As they post their contributions, we will alert our readers; they will likely do the same with other blog posts for their readers. All posts from the group will also be listed at "Blogging Against Secularism."

The blogs joining us to earnestly contend for the faith are:

Ft. Hard Knox

Sibby Online

Ron's Musings

Voices Carry

To all of you, Dakota Voice is grateful to partner with you!


Dakota Voice
 
Clicky Web Analytics