Archive for June, 2010

WHO AM I?

I was born in one country, raised in another.My father was born in another country.I was not his only child.

He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.

My mother died at an early age from cancer.

Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me, I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

My birth records were sketchy.

No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Miscellaneous Bible Passages on Government and Rulers

Compiled by Dr. Tom Snyder

What does the Bible, the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God, say about government and politics, including the modern social welfare state, public education, ownership of private property, and helping the needy?

Proverbs 8:15, 16 of the Bible, the inspired Word of God, says that governments should use wisdom to rule and to make laws that are just. Proverbs 17:7 says rulers also should not lie. Proverbs 20:26 says wise rulers always try to punish the wicked. Proverbs 28:2-4 and 29:4 urges rulers to maintain order justly, to follow God’s moral code and to avoid oppressing the poor.

Furthermore, both Romans 13:3-6 and 1 Peter 2:13-15 say that government officials, whether elected or not, are ministers and servants of God who punish and restrain wrongdoers and who commend or praise those who do good works according to God’s transcendent moral code revealed in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible. Government officials must do these things whether or not the people believe in God or the Bible.
Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Police in Michigan Arrest Four Christians for Preaching Jesus Outside Public Arab Festival

Has Shariah Law from the Muslim terrorist nation of Iran come to the United States?

Eight white police officers in Dearborn, Mich. arrested four Christians Friday June 18 and confiscated their video camera for handing out copies of the Gospel of John from the New Testament at the 15th annual Dearborn Arab International Festival.

The mosque in Dearborn, Michigan is the largest in America.

Islamic Shariah Law used in Iran and developed from the Koran, the “bible” for Muslims, forbids Christians and Jews from talking to Muslims about their faith. It also forbids Muslims from converting to other faiths, usually on pain of death.

The United States government and other national governments and agencies around the world recognize Iran as a major supporter of Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is defined as the deliberate torture, murder and/or dismemberment of civilians for political, religious or other ideological reasons.

The four Christian missionaries were arrested barely three minutes after they began to peacefully distribute copies of the Gospel of John.

According to one of the four missionaries, the policemen told the group that they could only distribute the Gospel five whole blocks from the festival!!!

Happily, the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., one of the top legal teams defending religious and political rights in the U.S., has decided to defend the Christians arrested for allegedly disturbing the peace.

“These Christian missionaries were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, but apparently the Constitution carries little weight in Dearborn, where the Muslim population seems to dominate the political apparatus,” Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said.

“The first thing [these] police officers did before making the arrests was to confiscate the video cameras in order to prevent a recording of what was actually happening,” Thompson added.

This situation in Dearborn is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable. It is also clearly unconstitutional, a frightening violation of the First Amendment.

Islam is an evil, violent ideology that doesn’t deserve to be labeled a religion. And, the Koran is an evil, intellectually confused and historically false diatribe against the Christian faith with a false, confused and irrational description of God and His divine attributes. It also contains a false description of the identity and teachings of Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh who died for our sins and rose from the dead to deliver us from evils and sins like the Koran, Islam, Shariah Law, and the Muslim-supporting leaders and police officials running the city of Dearborn.

To contact the Dearborn police and its city government to protest these arrests, please call (313) 943-2285 or write to the mayor at mayor@ci.dearborn.mi.us. To find out more information about or to support the Thomas More Law Center, please visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

- Source:  WorldNetDaily, www.wnd.com, 06/22/10.

Share

The Difference Between Face Time and Family Time

Although many parents are able to spend more physical face time with their children today, particularly fathers, this does not necessarily mean that they are providing the valuable face time, empathy, and bonding that children crave and require.

The rise of popularity and accessibility of technology has allowed more parents to get work done at home using laptops, cell phones, and mobile email. However, this increased ‘face time’ that parents are spending with their child does not, in fact, mean that there is more quality time being spent between children and parents.

The technology that is used creates a blurring gap between the line of personal life and work life, distracting parents from the valuable family time that their children crave. So, despite the fact that parents may very well be spending more time than ever with their children, they don’t always capture exactly what’s going on and happening between them.

Many modern families may not realize how this divided attention plays out with kids. However, a Michigan State University sociologist says, “If you’re not connecting with mom and dad (even though you’re in the house with them), what difference does it make?”

This information raises important questions regarding what will happen to our valuable family time and bonding amidst an era of growing digital distractions. Arranged marriages online? Family dinners on skype? Having most all human contact through Facebook? Permanent effects on the family are obviously not out, seeing as how the phenomenon of social media is somewhat recent, but it can be easily deduced that face to face, meaningful, human interaction is easily and hands down the most cherished. We don’t remember the great email our dads sent us, we remember the great hug they gave us after they got up early, on a Saturday, to watch our soccer game.

- Source:  USA Today, 04/15/10.

Share

Share

CHRISTIAN PURGE – The Hitler Factor (Part Two)

by Sharon Sebastian

Mid-1800, the false scientific justification to deny God as Creator started with a man named Charles Darwin. Darwin’s theory of evolution divided humans into superior and inferior status. Darwin, in his own writings, labeled people of color, in particular black people, as sub-par and sub-human. The appeal of such a theory held great appeal to men who both denied the existence of God and sought superiority over fellow humans. Among them was Karl Marx, the father of Communism, who was so pleased with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that he sent him gifts, including a signed copy of Das Kapital in 1873 inscribed: “From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin, Karl Marx.” Equally grateful to Darwin were mass murderers Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. All wrote of Darwin’s influence on them and their policies to oppress masses of people.

The inevitable outcome of Darwin was Hitler.

Though Marxism seeks to rid society of God, Hitler allowed religions. Early in his political career, he praised Catholicism. Initially, he also was favorably inclined towards Christianity. In time as he garnered power, Hitler came to find Christianity particularly troublesome when . . .  Read the rest of this entry »

Share

CHRISTIAN PURGE – The Obama Factor

by Sharon Sebastian

It’s afoot. The target: Christianity. Hijack, overthrow, or purge, the Obama government is making its move. True Christianity consists of people of biblical faith who are tolerant and giving while adhering to the Judeo-Christian teachings of Jesus Christ.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Christians and Jews has witnessed the blessings of living in a Christian nation:  “It is not an accident that America has provided the most tranquil level of prosperity that Jews have enjoyed for 2000 years and that is because America is a Christian nation. .I think always of America’s Bible Belt as Judaism’s safety belt.”   History records that true Christianity benefits nations.

Though over 75% of Americans profess to be Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Screwtape Makes Deep Advance by Surprising Right Flank

By Gary Moore

“Looking for a True Conservative: A conservative, in the best sense,

sees the world and its inhabitants as an interdependent organism…. And,

needless to say, an acceptable conservative is not one who thinks all the

answers are obvious but is a modest person who admits that problems are

not easily solved, that perfection is unattainable in this world and that it is

often necessary to admit mistakes, change one’s mind and start again.”

Paul Johnson

Forbes

November 16, 2009
Several years ago I managed the retirement plan of Willow Creek Church, the mega-church outside Chicago. When I’d go there, a local evangelical radio station would have me do a show. One show was about how we might help the poor of the US and the world. I mentioned two ideas that I personally utilized. One was Opportunity International, on whose board I have served. It is a Christian micro-enterprise lending ministry also located just outside Chicago. It raises money here so it can make tiny loans of about $200 in the third world so the poor can start businesses. That idea has since boomed.

The other idea I mentioned was the South Shore Bank in Chicago, where I’ve had a CD for over twenty years. It was partially owned by Christian denominations as its mission was to bring money into the inner-city to rehabilitate affordable housing. This life-long conservative Christian liked that as it created jobs, thereby getting people off welfare. In addition, Read the rest of this entry »

Share

The ‘Gay Gene’ Hoax

Ryan Sorba Traces Initial Pseudo-Science Homosexuals Hang Their Hat On

By Ryan Sorba

One of the most common studies homosexual activists cite when they make the absurd claim that people are “born gay” was conducted in 1993 by pro-gay activist Dr. Dean Hamer and his team of geneticists at the National Cancer Institute.

Hamer and his colleagues reported that a “gay gene” seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome.

Hamer’s genetic study played a key role in a massive public-relations campaign designed by Harvard-educated and Madison Avenue-trained homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. I refer to this campaign as the “born gay hoax.” In the late 1980s and early 1990s, this hoax was designed to help homosexual activists legally obtain minority-class status. Historically, courts have awarded minority-class status to groups that:

have demonstrated a long history of discrimination;

have demonstrated that they are powerless as a community to help themselves; and

have demonstrated an immutable characteristic such as race or gender (i.e., are born that way).

In the 1990s, homosexual activists believed that if they could convince the courts that they were “born gay” they would acquire protected-class status and could then legally challenge anti-sodomy laws in the United States.

Dr. Hamer

Dean Hamer played an enormous role in this effort. In fact, on April 3, 1994, the The Washington Times reported that while Hamer was testifying against Colorado’s Amendment 2 – which sought to keep men who have sex with men from winning minority-class status – Sen. Robert C. Smith, R-N.H., knew of Hamer’s motives and accused the doctor of “actively pursuing a gay agenda.”

Immediately after Hamer’s “gay gene” study was published in 1993, a media explosion ensued. Hamer’s results, however, were a fraud. The title of an article appearing on page 25 of the July 10, 1995, edition of the pro-gay magazine New York Native explains:

“Gay Gene” Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.

What is at the heart of evil in our world, and how do we lessen its power in our own lives? Check out David Kupelian’s newest book, “How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America”

The article begins:

In addition to the political and social firestorm Hamer’s research has ignited, he has also been criticized by numerous scientists for not performing what seems to be an obvious control experiment: examining the genes of heterosexual brothers.

The omission of a control group in a scientific experiment is significant, because it essentially renders the experiment inconclusive. Why would a supposedly professional researcher like Hamer conduct an experiment in such an unacceptable and unprofessional fashion?

According to the article, another researcher who worked on the project claimed that although Hamer conducted the experiment correctly by including a control variable, the results he obtained did not lead to the conclusion he was hoping to find: that some men are “born gay.” Hamer therefore did not release the information related to the control group and published pseudo-scientific results. All went well for Hamer until a junior researcher on his team exposed his scheme. The article continues:

Even worse for Hamer, the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research Integrity is now investigating his “gay gene” research, according to Crewdson. The inquiry concerns allegations that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (i.e., that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined). The data manipulation was reported to NIH’s integrity office by a junior researcher who performed research crucial to Hamer’s claimed discovery, according to Crewdson.

Crewdson’s revelations turned out to be true. A November 1995 edition of Scientific American confirmed that Hamer was “being charged with research improprieties and was under investigation by the National Institute of Health’s Federal Office of Research Integrity.” Although the NIH never released the results of the inquiry, Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. In addition to lying about his results, he had done his “gay gene” research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts men who have sex with men.

Upon learning that Hamer’s “gay gene” study was a hoax, one might assume that if other researchers were to attempt to replicate his experiment, including his control group, they would fail to obtain the pseudo-scientific result that there is a “gay gene.” This is exactly the case. The New York Native article continues:

“… [A]t least one lab that has tried hard to replicate his findings has been unsuccessful.

“’Only one independent laboratory has reported attempting such a replication, and it has found no evidence to support Hamer,’ Crewdson reported. ‘We can’t reproduce Hamer’s data,’ said George Ebers, a neurogeneticist from the University of Western Ontario, who has searched unsuccessfully for a Hamer-style genetic link to homosexuality in more than 50 pairs of gay Canadian brothers. In fact, Ebers found the genetic markers cited by Hamer in ‘exactly half of his brother pairs’ according to Crewdson – precisely what the laws of chance would predict, if the ‘markers had no significance.’”

The fact that Hamer’s study cannot be replicated confirms reports that Hamer lied about his results. In 1998, another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study as well; they also failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality.

Then, in the Aug. 6, 1999, edition of Science, George Rice and George Ebers published a review of Hamer’s study to go along with their previous attempts to replicate his findings. The scientists stated that the results of Hamer’s study “did not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.” They found that the brothers observed by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by mere chance.

By this time, Hamer had already conceded that his pseudo-scientific study did not support a genetic cause for homosexuality, in the Jan. 30, 1998, edition of the Washington Blade. He also conceded that homosexuality is “culturally transmitted, not inherited,” and that “there is not a single master gene that makes people gay. … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay,” he said.

Editor’s Note: Ryan Sorba has established conservative clubs on college campuses in Massachusetts and eight in Southern California, working as a field representative for the Campus Leadership Program at the Leadership Institute. He is the author of the forthcoming book The ‘Born Gay’ Hoax and can be contacted for speaking engagements at: rsorba@youngconservativesofcalifornia.com This article was originally published in WorldNetDaily, Friday, June 4, 2010. This article is reprinted by permission.

Share

America’s Christian Heritage

By Tom Snyder, Ph.D.

Introduction

Some people claim that the religious faith of the Founding Fathers of the United States was deism — the view that God created the universe but does not or cannot take an active role in guiding the universe or interfering in the affairs of men.  This claim is completely false.

It is time to confront this lie and those who propagate it.  The best way to fight falsehood is by showing the truth.  That truth can be tested by using logical arguments and factual evidence.

The Faith of Our Founding Fathers

According to Gary DeMar in America’s Christian History, “A study of America’s past will show that a majority of Americans shared a common faith and a common ethic.  America’s earliest founders were self-professing Christians and their founding documents expressed a belief in a Christian worldview (DeMar, America’s Christian History, 5).”

The late scholar M. E. Bradford spent much of his academic career examining all of the private and public writings of the Founding Fathers.  According to Bradford in A Worthy Company, all but about five of the 55 Framers of the U.S. Constitution were orthodox Christians.  These men had no intention of abolishing the Anglo-Christian culture which they had inherited, says Bradford.  In Original Intentions, Bradford notes, “The concept of the Framers as ordinary Christians, as members in good standing of the various Christian communions found in early America, is supported by the recorded pattern of their lives. . . . The assumption that this majority was likely to agree to totally secular institutional arrangements in the very structure of American politics contradicts almost everything we know about human nature, as well as the most self-evident components of Christian teaching concerning the relation of the magistrate to the ultimate source of his authority in God (Original Intentions, 88-89).”

“Of course,” adds Bradford, “the most unmistakable evidence of orthodoxy comes in references made by the Framers to Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Son of God.  These are commonplace in their private papers, correspondence and public remarks — and in the early records of their lives….Such declarations are so frequent in the papers of the Framers as to belie the now familiar theory that our Republic came into being in a moment of absolute tolerance, of religious neutrality qua indifference or deistic rationalism….And not all of this evidence is relegated to wills or very private documents (Original Intentions, 89-90).”  Many of the Framers speak explicitly “of the promise of the Cross,” Bradford states (Original Intentions, 90).  “The variety of surviving Christian witness in the papers and sayings of the Framers is indeed astonishing,” Bradford concludes (Original Intentions, 91).

DeMar and Bradford’s research is confirmed by other fine scholars.

M. Stanton Evans in The Theme Is Freedom:  Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition proves, by citing many historical sources, that America’s political traditions and governmental institutions are rooted in the Bible and in medieval and Protestant Christianity.  Among the traditions and institutions he cites are the right to own property, the right to buy and sell freely, the notion that the powers of all rulers and all government institutions should be limited, the idea of representative government, and traditions of economic and scientific progress.  “All of these conceptions,” Evans says, “come to us from the religion of the Bible (Evans, 307).”

The Christian era of the Middle Ages in Europe “nourished the institutions of free government,” Evans shows (150).  Biblical ideas about kingship and the separate but overlapping duties of Church and State led to the medieval idea of constitutionalism, which established limits “on the power of kings, and on the scope of government in general (Evans, 151).”  The rejection of this medieval doctrine by the leaders of the Renaissance and the French Enlightenment put Western liberties in jeopardy.  The Protestants in Colonial America, however, kept this idea alive.  They were influenced by Calvinist notions of covenantal government, a network of social, political, moral, and theological contracts between God and Man, and between people and their government.  In their view, kings, presidents, legislators, and judges derive their sovereignty first from God and then from the people under them.  Evans shows how this view led first to the Declaration of Independence then to the United States Constitution, and finally to the Bill of Rights.  In other words, our whole system of government was founded by the religious right of the 18th century, not by deists, not by French intellectuals, and certainly not by pagans or atheists.  Christian faith and American freedom must go together, Evans concludes.

“The spiritual world of the Founding Fathers was one of Protestantism,” Saul Padover declares in The World of the Founding Fathers (Padover, 43).  Padover also notes that, despite some of the Founding Fathers’ antagonism toward traditional orthodox Christianity, “a residue of iron Calvinism remained in their souls, nourishing their stubborn sense of personal independence and giving moral support to their systematic refusal to accept [human] authority without questioning it (Padover, 44).”  Padover adds that the Founding Fathers were, for the most part, Anti-Roman Catholic, Anti Church of England, and Anti Puritan theocracy.

In The Roots of American Order, the late Russell Kirk, the father of the modern conservative political movement, also shows how great the Christian influence was on the Founding Fathers.  In that book, he also says the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are “more nearly related to the Hebrew understanding of the Covenant (Kirk, 364)” than to Thomas Hobbes’ or John Locke’s ideas about the social contract.

According to Kirk, the preaching of Jonathan Edwards and others led America away from deism:  “The New England mind, which had been sliding into Deism, returned under Edwards’ guidance to its old Puritan cast.  For the rest of the eighteenth century, and for long thereafter, an evangelical Christian revival rooted in Calvinistic doctrines [my emphasis] spread through New England and presently throughout the rest of America (Kirk, 340).”  Kirk points out that Thomas Jefferson had to hide his personal religious views because “it was not in ‘Nature’s God’ that the American people generally believed, by the end of the colonial period:  they believed in Jonathan Edwards’ absolute God, the source of all goodness, the being of beings.  Later it would be said that Jonathan Edwards’ philosophy was the foundation of the Democratic party — during the administration of President Jackson:  Jeffersonian Deism was defeated even within the political organization that Jefferson had created (Kirk, 343).”

“Although Deism in America would seem to be at floodtide during the American Revolution,” writes Kirk, “actually a revived Christian orthodoxy already was vigorous then — and would be stronger still by the time of the Constitutional Convention.  The American people came to expect their public men to be Christians, or at least give lip-service to Christianity (Kirk, 342).”

Six other scholars support Kirk’s statements on American deism.  Ernest Campbell Mossner in the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says, “Before the Revolution, deism made relatively little progress (Mossner, 333).”  Rousas J. Rushdoony writes, “Actually, Deism was a late arrival in America, and very slight in extent and influence prior to the American Revolution (Rushdoony, 2).”  Historians Forrest McDonald and Ellen Shapiro McDonald point out that not only did the French Enlightenment have no impact on America but also the Founding Fathers “cited the Bible more than any other source (Requiem, 6).”  Most Americans “shared a Protestant Christian world view (Requiem, 12),” add the McDonalds.

Finally, in 1989, the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company published God and Politics:  Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government.  Both Gary DeMar and John Eidsmoe, in two separate chapters, present evidence which denies the charge that the Founding Fathers were mostly deist (see pages 200-212 and 221-230).

Besides Thomas Jefferson, many people cite Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine as well-known deists.  Even the evidence for this is faulty.

For instance, Franklin admits in his autobiography that although he thought deism was true when he was a teenager, he later found it not to be practical.  Also, later in his life, Franklin publicly expressed a belief in Divine Providence and said so publicly at the Constitutional Convention.  Such a belief is certainly not common to deists.  Franklin was also one of the signers of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, a public treaty between the United States and Great Britain.  This treaty opens with the phrase, “In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.”  Even if Franklin privately was a deist and a Unitarian, he publicly signed a Christian document supporting the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, an essential doctrine for believers!

Ernest Campbell Mossner in the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says that Thomas Paine was not “overtly” a deist until 1794-96 when he published The Age of Reason in France (Mossner, 334).  Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, which was published anonymously in 1776 and which helped spur the Revolution, only had a temporary popularity, and Paine didn’t even live in America until 1774 (Rushdoony, 25).  Jerome D. Wilson and William F. Ricketson in their biography Thomas Paine assert that, in Common Sense, Paine “gives throughout the pamphlet the impression of being a very devout Christian (Wilson, 26),” because he knew that most of his readers were raised Protestant.  In that pamphlet, Paine also “shows a very deep respect for the Bible, a hatred of the devil, distrust of Roman Catholics, and himself to be a God-fearing man.  In fact, he rested his case against monarchy almost entirely on scriptural authority.  Furthermore, the character he projects is one who subscribes to the Puritan work ethic (Wilson, 26).”  These comments about Common Sense can be confirmed if you actually read the document.  For instance, at one point in Common Sense, after Paine urges the framing of a Continental Charter among the Thirteen Colonies, he writes, “Let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God (Paine, 98).”  Here, Paine makes a statement affirming the divinity of the Bible, which he would later apparently condemn in his other, certainly more radical writings!

Thus, Paine’s private belief in deism did not really affect the American Revolution or the U.S. Constitution.  Paine was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence nor was he a signer of the U.S. Constitution.  It is therefore not even accurate to call him a true Founding Father.

Sometimes people say that John Adams, one of the leaders of the American War for Independence, was not a Christian.  Such statements are based on a series of private letters Adams wrote to Jefferson between 1812 and 1814, where Adams attacks the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.  These letters, however, although they probably represent Adams’ personal view throughout most of his life, are a private correspondence.  Publicly, Adams behaved differently.  For instance, he was one of the main negotiators and signers of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which opens with a statement supporting the doctrine of the Christian Trinity.  Here again, we have an example of a Founding Father who keeps private any hint that he has unorthodox views about God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity.  Thus, it is completely inappropriate to use these private writings as evidence because they contradict Adams’ public actions.

Admittedly, the Founding Fathers were not solely influenced by Christian doctrine.  They also had a great knowledge of history and political science, from the Ancient Roman Republic to their own century.  Not only Russell Kirk but also Bernard Bailyn in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and Gordon Wood in The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 point this out.

Bailyn writes that the leaders of the American Revolution not only had great fears of a national body of bishops like that of the Church of England, they also had a great fear of parliamentary power and of using taxes to support national churches.  This doesn’t mean, however, that they had a problem with using public funds to support Christianity because they did indeed occasionally use public money for that purpose.  Bailyn also says the revolutionary leaders sometimes showed a superficial knowledge of Locke, Montesqieu, and Voltaire.  Wood writes in his book that they found no problem combining the ideas of such writers with all sorts of facts from history and all sorts of quotes from the Bible to support their politics.  Just because they used unorthodox writers to support their politics, therefore, does not mean that they were not founding a Christian nation.  Significantly, Bailyn adds that the leaders of the Revolution believed “that America had a special place, as yet not fully revealed, in the architecture of God’s intent (Bailyn, 33).”  In no way can such a belief be called deist.  A deistic god does not have an architecture or design for a nation’s history.

The Christian Faith of the American Public

The Christian faith of most of the Founding Fathers was pretty much the same as that of the American people at the time and for many years thereafter.

In Democracy in America, first published in 1835 and 1840, Alexis de Tocqueville declares, “For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other (de Tocqueville, 293).”  Adds the great historian, who traveled throughout America in the 1800s, “In the United States. . . Christianity itself is an established and irresistible fact which no one seeks to attack or defend. . . .  the Americans have accepted the main dogmas of the Christian religion without examination [and] receive in like manner a great number of moral truths derived therefrom (de Tocqueville, 432).”  Could someone please explain to me how deism supposedly flourished in such an atmosphere as this?

Christian historian Kenneth Scott Latourette describes the Christian influence on the founding of the United States in A History of Christianity:  “In general, perhaps because of its predominantly Reformed heritage, American Protestantism was activistic. . . .  This extreme Protestantism with its strong Reformed strain was helping to shape the nascent nation.  Even though those with a formal church membership constituted only a small fraction of the population, ideals and institutions were being moulded by their faith.  Moral standards were set by it. . . .  The Protestantism of the Thirteen Colonies was laying the foundations for the democracy which found expression in the American Revolution and the United States (Latourette, 963).”  This quote from Latourette’s book, a classic work on the history of Christianity, is echoed by Earle E. Cairns in Christianity Through the Centuries, who praises Protestant reformer John Calvin’s influence on education in America and on the growth of democracy and capitalism (Cairns, 312).

Rousas J. Rushdoony discusses the strong Christian influence on the founding of the United States in This Independent Republic:  Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History.  He writes, “The American political system, thus, is, first, a development of Christian feudalism, with, as shall be noted, Reformation concepts.  Second, it is therefore markedly different from the doctrines of John Locke, Whig politics, and the political faith of the Enlightenment.  Third, while rooted in the English tradition, it represented a new development in political and constitutional theory (Rushdoony, 22).”

After discussing the legality and morality of the American Revolution, Rushdoony declares, “Basic to all colonial thought was the ancient and Christian sense of the transcendence and majesty of law.  According to John Calvin, ‘the law is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a speaking law.’  In terms of the authority of this silent magistrate, the rebelling colonials moved, and in terms of this faith, their magistrates became speaking laws.  Constitutionalism, for the colonials, meant, as Baldwin has demonstrated with reference to the New England clergy, the absolute and sovereign God and His law undergirding the silent magistrate and the speaking law (Rushdoony, 32).”

Rushdoony adds that the colonials were inspired by the Christian notion that government power and sovereignty should be limited.  “This meant, first, a division of powers, which naturally implied, second, a multiplicity of powers, and, third, a complexity of powers (Rushdoony, 33).”  Their esteem for complexity “had more than Calvinistic roots,” Rushdoony asserts.  “It was deeply imbedded in the Augustinian and feudal inheritance of the Colonists (Rushdoony, 34).”  Rushdoony concludes:  “The colonial denial of [absolute governmental] sovereignty was an aspect of the Christian faith of the day (Rushdoony, 40).”

M. Stanton Evans in his recent book The Theme Is Freedom:  Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition also lends much factual support to the view that the roots of many of America’s political traditions and governmental institutions can be found in the Bible and in medieval and Protestant Christianity.  Among the traditions and institutions he cites are the right to own property, the right to buy and sell freely, the notion that the powers of all rulers and all government institutions should be limited, the idea of representative government, and traditions of economic and scientific progress.  “All of these conceptions,” Evans says, “come to us from the religion of the Bible (Evans, 307).”  Christian faith and American freedom must go together, Evans concludes.

Much more evidence about the Christian faith of our Founding Fathers and the rest of their fellow citizens can be given, but I trust the reader will find the evidence above to be more than sufficient to show that the United States of America was indeed founded as a Christian nation.

The Two Kingdoms of God

Several times I have cited evidence that the religious and political ideology of the Founding Fathers stems from the ideas of one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin.  Here’s what Calvin says about church and state:

There is a twofold government in man:  one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men…the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul while the latter has to do with concerns of the present life…the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior (McNeill, Calvin, 847).

At one point, Calvin calls these two governments “the spiritual kingdom” and “the political kingdom (Calvin, 847).  Although he makes a distinction between these two kingdoms, Calvin also declares, “They are not at variance (Calvin, 1487)” because they are both instituted by God.  That is why he admonishes his readers, “We are not to misapply to the political order the gospel teaching on spiritual freedom (Calvin, 847).”  In other words, although we are saved by grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-10), God still makes certain moral demands on the political order or the civil government, and on all believers and nonbelievers who live under that political order.  The civil government “pertains only to the establishment of civil justice and outward morality,” Calvin asserts, but “is ordained by God (Calvin, 1485 and 1489).”  Therefore, we should not think of civil government as “a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men (Calvin, 1487).”  We need the civil government to restrain sin even among Christians, contends Calvin.  To think of doing away with civil government “is outrageous barbarity (Calvin, 1488).”

According to Calvin, the civil government “prevents idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public peace from being disturbed; it provides that each man may keep his property safe and sound; that men may carry blameless intercourse among themselves; that honesty and modesty may be preserved among men (Calvin, 1488).”  The civil government also ought to hand out justice, deliver the oppressed, protect the alien, the widow and the orphan, stop murder, and “provide for the common safety and peace of all (Calvin, 1496).”  Calvin condemns stealing, murder, adultery, and promiscuity.  He admits that the Mosaic penalties for such crimes should be geared to the people, time and place but that times of great social stress require harsher penalties from the state.

Thus, Calvin strongly implies that the Church, as well as individual Christians, should work together to promote these biblical principles concerning the civil government, the political kingdom ordained by God.  Historian John T. MacNeill confirms this understanding of Calvin’s writings.  “It was Calvin’s aim,” he says, “to bring religious influences to bear upon magistrates….Calvin attempted to call forth among all citizens a political conscience and a sense of public responsibility….God, he said, should be held ‘the president and judge of our elections’ (McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, 187).”  (See also pages 224 and 225 of McNeill’s book.)  Calvin concludes:  “No one ought to doubt that civil authority is a calling, not only holy and lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most honorable of all callings in the whole life of mortal men (Calvin, 1490).”

In “Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed,” Martin Luther makes the same distinction between a spiritual government or kingdom and a temporal government.  He says there will be few people who actually live a truly Christian life.  “For this reason,” he declares, “God has ordained two governments (Lull, 665).”  Both governments are necessary, Luther contends:  “the one to produce righteousness, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds (Lull, 666).”

Christians may quibble with some aspects of Calvin and Luther’s thinking about the Protestant doctrine of the Two Kingdoms of God, but their viewpoint is mostly a biblical one, as passages like Matthew 22:22, Acts 4:19, Romans 13:1-7, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 appear to demonstrate.  Our Founding Fathers operated under this same sacred principle, as do many of the people in the so-called religious right today.

Conclusion

The United States Constitution actually says “in the year of our Lord,” a direct reference to Jesus Christ as God.  This phrase was not a “mere convention” as some people claim; it was an expression of honor to the one true God.  We can know this to be true because we know that many atheists today hate to make any such reference to Christianity.  If references to Christianity in 1787 were mere convention, then lack of reference to Christianity today would also have to be mere convention.  Just ask atheists why they want to remove “In God we trust” from our coins if such a removal represents “mere convention.”

The Constitution also requires elected officials to take an oath of office.  According to Bradford in Original Intentions, at the time the Constitution was written, to take an oath of office was to swear publicly by Almighty God.  That is one reason the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution felt it unnecessary to require elected officials to also take a religious test in order to run for office.  Why take a religious test when you have already sworn by God to uphold a document that expresses an explicit belief in the Christian Trinity?  Although the Constitution forbids the federal government from mandating a religious test, it does not prohibit state or local governments or American voters from applying a religious test.  Therefore, it is fully constitutional for a state or local government or any Christian political group to require candidates to believe in the Trinity or any other Christian doctrine from the Bible.  If other people don’t like the test, then they can fight it in the political arena, through the ballot box.

David Barton shows in Original Intent:  The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion that the idea of having no religious test meant only that the federal government could not force political candidates to become members of one Protestant denomination.  Thus, when the Constitution forbids making a religious test, it did not mean that candidates must be non-Christians.  It meant they could be Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, or a member of any other orthodox Christian denomination.

The United States Constitution and the American political system were based on Christian principles.  Included in those Christian principles are the following theological and moral imperatives:

  • Government power and sovereignty should be limited to the specific theological and moral commands of the Christian God.
  • There should be a balance and separation of powers within the government so that a small group of evil people will be unable to tyrannize others.
  • All citizens should have the right to own property and to buy and sell freely, according to the moral law of the Christian God.
  • The right to life and property cannot be abridged without due process.
  • The ultimate source of all authority lies with the God of the Bible.
  • The American Government was designed to be a sacred covenant between the people, the state, and God.  If the state breaks this covenant, then the people have the right, and the duty, to oppose the state but to use violence only as a last resort.
  • As the Constitution clearly states, Jesus Christ is our Lord because He is the second member of the “most Holy and undivided Trinity.”
  • Although the Constitution affirms a belief in the deity of Christ and in the Holy Trinity, neither the church nor the state is allowed to physically force people to believe these biblical teachings.  The state should, however, do everything it can to facilitate the spread of the Christian Gospel and to place moral limits on the behavior of people.

As the last constitutional, and biblical, principle shows, a truly Christian government should not really frighten atheists or non-Christians because a truly Christian government would recognize that people must have freedom to reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A truly Christian nation would thus actually demand a high degree of religious freedom for everyone.  A non-Christian government, however, as the current situation in our public schools demonstrates, violates this law of God.  Our public schools may pretend to be neutral when it comes to Christianity, the Bible and politics, but such pretensions do not match reality.

Separation of church and state does not mean separation between politics and religion or politics and the Bible.  As Gary DeMar points out, there is a difference between an ecclesiocracy where “the Church rules in society with religious leaders (ministers and priests as the government officials) DeMar, “Theocracy,” 11)” and a theocracy, where God rules the outward behavior of all people through the civil government.  Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way may want to completely separate Christian theology and morality from the government’s social policy, but such a separation is not only impossible it is also unconstitutional.  All these groups will ever end up doing is replacing one theology and morality with another.  In effect, they are guilty of doing the same thing they accuse other people of doing.  Their agenda is filled with intellectual and moral hypocrisy!

The Christian republic founded in America in 1776 and 1787 was not a perfect one, but it was eminently preferable to the bloated, atheistic government that radical liberals and other extremists, backed by an ignorant and increasingly totalitarian Supreme Court, have established in this century.  We must oppose the tyranny of the Supreme Court and the theological and moral corruption of the American legal system.  Let us return to the Christian vision of our Founding Fathers!  Let us free all Americans from their ignorance of the Christian heritage which formed this once-mighty nation.

True love does not delight in evil but rejoices with God’s truth.  Rejoice in the Christian heritage of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America!  Remember the words of Jesus Christ in Mark 1:15:  The reign of God is near.  Repent and believe the Gospel!

###

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlstrom, Sydney.  A Religious History of the American People.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

Bailyn, Bernard.  The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Barton, David.  The Myth of Separation.  Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 1992.

—–.  Original Intent:  The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion.  Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder Press, 1996.

Boller, Paul F., Jr.  George Washington & Religion.  Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963.

Bradford, M.E.  A Worthy Company:  Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution.  Marlborough, New Hampshire: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982.

—–.  Original Intentions:  On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.  Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1993.

Cairns, Earle E.  Christianity Through the Centuries:  A History of the Christian Church.  2nd revised edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981.

Cousins, Norman, editor.  In God We Trust:  The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.

Dawson, Christopher.  Religion and the Rise of Western Culture.  New York: Doubleday, 1991.

de Tocqueville, Alexis.  Democracy in America.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988 edition.

De Mar, Gary.  America’s Christian History:  The Untold Story.  Atlanta: American Vision, 1993.

—–.  “Theocracy: The Rule of God Not the Rule of the Church.”  Biblical Worldview. Sept. 1994, 11-12.

Evans, M. Stanton.  The Theme Is Freedom:  Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1994.

Federer, William J.  America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations.  St. Louis, Missouri:  Amerisearch, 2000.

Gaustad, Edwin S.  Neither King Nor Prelate:  Religion and the New Nation 1776-1826.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993.

Hofstedter, Richard.  The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It.  New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

Ketchum, Ralph, ed.  The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates.  New York: Penguin Books, 1986.

Kirk, Russell.  The Roots of American Order.  3d edition.  Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott.  A History of Christianity.  Revised edition.  New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Lull, Timothy F., editor.  Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

McDonald, Forrest.  Novus Ordo Seclorum:  The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution.  Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1985.

McDonald, Forrest, and Ellen Shapiro McDonald.  Requiem:  Variations on Eighteenth-Century Themes.  Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1988.

McNeill, John T., editor.  Calvin:  Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

—–.  The History and Character of Calvinism.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Mossner, Ernest Campbell.  “Deism.”  Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

Padover, Saul K.  The World of the Founding Fathers.  New York: A.S. Barnes, 1960.

Paine, Thomas.  Common Sense.  London: Penguin Books, 1986 edition.

Rossiter, Clinton, ed.  The Federalist Papers.  New York: Penguin Books, 1961.

Rushdoony, Rousas J.  This Independent Republic:  Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History.  Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1978.

Schmidt, Alvin J.  The Menace of Multiculturalism:  Trojan Horse in America.  Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1997.

Smith, Gary Scott, editor.  God and Politics:  Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government.  Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1989.

Wilson, Jerome D., and William F. Ricketson.  Thomas Paine.  Updated edition.  Boston: G. K. Hall, 1989.

Wood, Gordon S.  The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787.  Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.

Share