Tuesday, March 29, 2016
What would Winthrop think about the New World today? Today's churches are surely less pure than the Church of England was in the 1600's.
Where would Winthrop go today to establish a City without the impurities of America's atheistic, hedonistic culture?
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Well, it's Veterans' Day, and I haven't updated my "Veterans Day" website in a few years. I think the site goes back as far as 2007.
Here's a summary of the argument of that website, with a few new webpages added.
I believe unrepentant vets should be excommunicated.
- A "Veteran" was part of an organized killing machine.
- The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill."
- It is therefore a sin to be a part of the U.S. Armed Forces.
- Veterans who do not repent (repudiate their sin and pledge to move in the opposite direction, beating swords into plowshares, making restitution, and promoting life and peace) should be kicked out of Christian churches ("excommunicated") -- just like unrepentant adulterers.
Here are some new pages to supplement this argument.
Since I was born, the U.S. Armed Forces have killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS of MILLIONS of innocent, non-combatant civilians. The Armed Forces continue to be committed to killing anyone who gets in their way.
"In the way of what?" you might ask.
Since 1971, when Nixon removed the last connection between gold and "the dollar," the Armed Forces have been committed to the goals of propping up the "Petrodollar" and protecting the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporations, particularly oil corporations with assets in foreign nations.
- NOT "defending" the U.S. "homeland" against armed foreign invasion (but even if it were, Jesus says "national defense" is a sin. [Better Red than making the other guy Dead.]).
- NOT "defending the Constitution."
- NOT "defending our freedoms."
Why did the U.S. overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein (and destroy the largest population of Christians in the Arab world) but doesn't lift a finger against the government of North Korea? Because Saddam threatened to stop accepting "dollars" for oil. This threatened "the dollar" as an international "reserve currency."
The United States is an atheistic, aggressor nation.
• Atheistic: The United States federal government now expressly repudiates America's Christian heritage. Your local public school teacher cannot teach students in a government-operated school that the Declaration of Independence is really true -- because that document is based on a Christian worldview. U.S. foreign policy promotes abortion and homosexuality around the world. U.S. troops are killing the innocent in defense of pornographic atheism.
• Aggressor: The United States federal government is the most evil and dangerous entity on the planet. (The government of North Korea may be more evil, but it is not more dangerous. An innocent child anywhere in the world is more likely to be killed by a member of the U.S. Armed Forces than by the armed forces of North Korea.)
There are certainly veterans who have suffered greatly. They may still have nightmares about the innocent people they killed in defense of "the dollar" (PTSD). They may have lost limbs. They may be battling cancer from the depleted uranium bombs and other weapons they deployed against innocent populations. This is indeed tragic, and on a purely humanitarian level, we should help these "wounded warriors." On a Christian level, however, they still need to repent. Kudos to those who have.
The Republican National Platform of 2000 says that
We [Republicans] will once again make wearing the uniform the object of national pride.
The wearing of a U.S. military uniform should be an object of public disgrace.
Friday, August 07, 2015
This week is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan by the United States.
Most Americans still feel the bombings were justified.
Probably the majority of the Japanese people who were killed, if given a choice, would have preferred surrender vs. a continuation of the war.
But these innocent non-combatant civilians were not the decision-makers.
They were pawns.
Terrorism is widely defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" and "a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."
The bombing of Japan -- not just the atomic bombing, but the sustained conventional (and probably more lethal) bombing that preceded it -- was an act of terrorism. It was "violence for political purposes."
In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a "fatwah" against the United States in opposition to (1) U.S. Bombing of Muslims in the middle east (2) U.S. military bases on Muslim holy land (3) U.S. support of Israel's anti-Palestinian policies. 9/11 was an act of violence intended to intimidate and force change of these political policies.
The bombing of Japan was a protracted act of terrorism -- violence intended to change the political policies of the Japanese government. It was perhaps 750 9/11's inflicted on Japan.
Conservative, patriotic Americans will object to U.S. policy being equated with Al-Qaeda policy. But the objection is not based on morality. It is based on patriotism, which is a non-rational allegiance to a particular political regime. They are morally equivalent.
To say that Japan and the United States are moral equivalents will offend some. Japan was evil. We are good. Japan was aggressive and invading China. U.S. sanctions against Iraq were two or three times more lethal than Hiroshima, but Clinton's Secretary of State would say the deaths of half a million children were "worth it." That is, "moral."
Let's do some moral calculations.
I have used this illustration in my discussions of allegiance and the oath of office: Suppose the government requires your parents to get a blood test, and based on the medical data obtained from the test, the government concludes that your parents are genetically likely to experience certain end-of-life medical conditions which will be very costly to treat. In order to protect the fiscal solvency of the Medicare and Social Security systems, the government orders you to put your parents to sleep. That means kill them. Would you obey the government's order? It could save the government over a million dollars, and any life insurance company would agree that your parents don't have a million dollars of life value left in them.
I wouldn't obey the government. The Bible says "Honor your father and mother" and "Thou shalt not kill." According to the Supreme Court, putting God ahead of the government in this way renders you ineligible to hold any public office because of your lack of allegiance, patriotism, or loyalty.
It is immoral to take the life of a human being based on this kind of political calculation. Can we agree on that?
How about another illustration.
You receive a letter from the government ordering you to get your affairs together and report to the local hospital. There are five people waiting for you at the hospital. Each of these people has a life-threatening need for your vital organs. By sacrificing your heart, lungs, liver, and a couple of other organs, you will save the lives of five people.
Does the government have the moral right to take your life based on this calculation? One life saves five! What a deal!
If you voluntarily chose to do that, an argument about the morality of suicide would ensue. I'm talking about a government making the choice for you, without or against your consent.
Does the government have the right to take your life based on the fact that five lives will be saved?
This week we commemorate the U.S. government's choice to take the lives of 200,000 innocent non-combatant Japanese civilians without their consent in order to save the lives of a million American soldiers. At least that's the most popular patriotic justification for the bombing. "One life saved five."
But those Americans Soldiers weren't going to die of some inevitable natural cause, but were going to die because their government was prepared to order them to die. A million American soldiers who really did not have to invade Japan anyway. As Eisenhower put it, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Not only was it unnecessary to kill 1 Japanese person to save 5 Americans, U.S. policy likely increased human deaths by nearly 100 times. Crushing Japan meant crushing the Japanese government's ability to invade China. This allowed the spread of Communism in China, which ultimately cost the lives of 76 million Chinese people.
Do we really trust politicians to make such God-like calculations? Obama? Bush? Truman? Should one man have the power to kill a human being based on a fiscal cost-benefit analysis? Should a politician have the power to kill a million people based on a geo-political calculation?
Communism was the clear winner of World War II. Communism in China; Communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia. That's what "we" fought for. That's what tens of millions of people died for. Was it "worth it?"
We must allow simple Christian morality to prevail over Harvard-educated patriotism.
- Hiroshima - Gulf of Tonkin 2007
- Nagasaki 2007
- Religion and National Security 2009
- Hiroshima: From Christian Republic to Atheistic Empire
- Campaign Platform: Hiroshima
- Pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
America is (or was intended to be) a Christian nation.
More specifically, a Protestant nation.
More specific than that, a Presbyterian nation.
The British (Church of England) referred to the American Revolution as "the Presbyterian junto"
I'm a Calvinist. I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of "the depravity of man."
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed in "the depravity of man." James Madison studied under John Witherspoon, the Calvinist President of Princeton University and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. As Madison put it, " If men were angels, no government would be necessary." This is arguably the most famous line from The Federalist Papers. We've all heard this in our civics class. We need "government" to keep society in line.
But in that particular essay (#51), Madison was not trying to emphasize the need for society to have a civil government. Everybody already agreed on that. He was stressing the need to control the controllers:
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Hence the need for such "auxiliary precautions" as "checks and balances," a "separation of powers," and a Bill of Rights. All because we cannot trust men with political power. Trusting the government is un-American.
But, as we know, the Framers trusted men with political power anyway. They (wrongly) believed that God required men to form governments. If you go through the Bible verse by verse, at each step asking the question, "did God just now command human beings to form what we know as 'the State?'" after each of the 31,103 verses you will have to answer "No." God never commanded human beings to form "the State." "The State" was invented by unGodly rebels like Nimrod. I'll betcha.
The institution called "the State" is responsible for more evil than any other institution ever created by man. More evil than all organized crime. More evil than all "private sector" evil. And the United States, believe it or not, is the most evil government on the planet.
Some will say, "But if we don't have any government, society will be plunged into anarchy."
"Anarchy" in this case means "chaos, lawlessness, rampant crime."
Why would "chaos, lawlessness, and rampant crime" break out without politicians? Because of "the depravity of man." That's the usual conservative answer.
I would like to suggest that human beings are better than that.
The Bible says that every human being knows it is immoral to steal or to hurt other people. See the first two chapters of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.
14 The Gentiles do not have the law [which was given through Moses]. But they do what the law says because their own hearts tell them to. They have a law of their own, even though they do not know the law [of Moses].
15 They show that the law is written in their hearts. They know what is right to do and what is wrong to do. Their own thoughts tell them they have done what is wrong or what is not wrong.)
The King James Version renders verse 15:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Christians are often told they should not judge homosexuals, adulterers or abortionists. That, of course, is an intolerant judgment of/against Christians.
As the KJV suggests, we all accuse or excuse other people all the time, based on our internal moral compass.
This capacity for judging others holds us all in check. I would like to suggest that our concern over the moral judgments of our family, neighbors, co-workers, employers, and Facebook friends, is more immediately important to us than what politicians in Washington D.C. think about us.
If Washington D.C. were to fall into hell, nobody would notice. "Anarchy" would not break out, even if we lived in a state of literal anarchy, that is, a stateless condition. People will still be judgmental. There will be social pressure not to steal. The Bible says unbelievers tend to pretend to be believers. This is why you have so many "hypocrites" in church.
If you believe in the "depravity of man," you might admit that there are times when you would like to steal, but you're afraid someone will find out. You don't want to be publicly branded as a thief.
Not simply that you don't want to be arrested by the government's police. Most criminals think they can evade the police and "get away with it." Non-criminals like you are more concerned about what other non-criminals like you think about you.
People who don't care what others think are called "sociopaths."
They can inflict harm on others, because they don't care what others feel.
They are not social.
Here's why anarchy (a society without politicians) is our best option.
First, the cost of creating a "civil government" -- a socialist monopoly on security -- to deal with the small percentage of people who are criminal sociopaths is greater than the cost to society inflicted by those sociopaths. You pay about 2/3 of everything you earn to the federal government. Every year. Do you think if we abolished the federal government that private sector criminals would inflict that much damage on you? By abolishing corporate income taxes (which you pay at the checkstand) and income taxes and all other ways Washington D.C. has its hand in your wallet, your disposable income would double, and you could afford to buy a much better system of security than the government provides, at a more competitive price. Capitalists would see to that very quickly. (Right now, there's less of a market for private security because consumers live under the illusion that the government protects them. Which it doesn't.)
Second, government destroys the family, and it is families that create empathy and prevent children from growing up to be sociopaths. More powerful government means less powerful families, with mothers forced to get a job outside the home to pay the government's taxes, and more sociopaths. Then the cry goes up for more government, and you have a vicious cycle of declining civilization.
Third, sociopaths are attracted to government like bees to honey. Politicians are more likely to be sociopaths than any other occupation. You want more government? Get ready to pay more taxes to hire more sociopaths. Sociopaths love the power to control, to steal, to inflict pain, and -- best of all -- to do it "legally." And get paid handsomely to do it. Why on earth would you hire sociopaths to protect you from sociopaths?
Let's start imagining a less sociopathic society. Let's imagine how human beings would interact without sociopaths in "government." Start here.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Republicans seem to oppose a deal with Iran regarding the development of nuclear energy in Iran.
The GOP’s Iran Dilemma by Patrick J. Buchanan -- Antiwar.com
How would a Christian government (as opposed to a secular humanist government, such as we have today) deal with Iran?
To answer this question, I suggest reviewing my answer to the question, "How would a Christian government deal with Iraq?"
The U.S. didn't follow that policy, and destroyed the nation of Iraq, and the largest Christian community in the Arab world. There were over one million Christians in Iraq, and they had the freedom to publicly evangelize, which would be a death penalty offense in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. "ally." Today there are less than 20% of those Christians alive in Iraq.
The United States federal government is the enemy of Christianity. It is also the enemy of followers of Abraham, and followers of Muhammad. The atheistic ("secular") government of the United States is the enemy of mankind.
If the federal government had even the slightest interest in following the Constitution and the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers, it would declare a national day of fasting, prayer and repentance for the monstrous evil it inflicted on Iraq, and continues to inflict on the Middle East.
The federal government should begin asking the question, How can we make restitution for the senseless destruction of so many lives and so much infrastructure in Iraq?
Only then can the United States even begin to start to understand how to approach Iran.
Dealing with Iran requires spiritual (Biblical) insight, as well as political/diplomatic insight. How well has the United States done in this regard so far?
The United States helped overthrow a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953. It imposed a dictatorship on the people of Iran for the next 25 years. That dictator was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, and U.S. diplomats were taken hostage. In retaliation, the U.S. assisted Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, which lasted a decade, and cost the lives of a million human beings. Through its sanctions policy, the United States has imposed an incalculable burden on the people of Iran.
The U.S. cannot see clearly without repenting of its unconstitutional and unChristian behavior for the last 50 years or more. "Patriotic" Americans cannot assess the value of "The Iran Deal" because they are victims of educational malpractice.
Does Iran Really Want a Bomb? — Patrick J. Buchanan
The federal government, consisting of defenders of "the dollar" (the Federal Reserve System") and defenders of the military-industrial complex, are on the side of terrorists. That sounds like the paranoid claim of an insane person, until you give it a little thought and apprehend the facts.
"Terrorism" is the use of violence to achieve a political objective. The U.S. military, propping up dollar-hegemony, uses violence to achieve its political objectives. It puts weapons in the hands of "terrorists" who, it is hoped, will topple governments which are seen as obstacles to U.S./dollar hegemony.
The U.S. and Al Qaeda Are on the Same Side in Yemen | The American Conservative
The U.S. spends almost as much money on weapons as the rest of the world combined. It uses these weapons to achieve its political objectives. That is "terrorism" by definition. Nobody is attacking the United States in an attempt to invade it and "take over." There are numerous groups who, having been attacked by the U.S., seek to defend themselves. But the United States is not defending itself against any enemy that was not created by its own policies. Russia and China would rather have Americans working hard and selling their goods and services to Russians and Chinese. They have no desire to "invade" America, or to drop nuclear bombs on the goose that lays the golden eggs. Americans are already slaves to the Russians and the Chinese, insofar as they spend their days working as capitalists for consumers in Russia and China. "The customer is king," as they say, and capitalists are their slaves.
If you don't want to work for the Chinese, and you prefer using the military to get what you want (something for nothing), then God will raise up terrorists in judgment against you.
This is why the hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans turn over to the military-industrial complex every year -- instead of to
- single mothers contemplating abortion,
- immigrants fleeing drug war cartels to work in peace and feed their families,
- children of absent fathers who need a better education than they get in government schools,
- or to a couple of billion people overseas who need the help more than Raytheon or Lockheed Martin
Go back to Sunday School, and then you'll be equipped to take a position on the Iran Deal.
Monday, July 06, 2015
Some people say I'm crazy because I'm an anarchist.
Of course, what I say is, "I am not an ARCHIST."
An "archist" is someone who believes he has a right to impose his will on others by force or threats of violence.
Am I really crazy to say that using coercion and threatening violence is unethical and immoral?
Is the following really a crazy thought:
|For the last few centuries, human beings have tried organizing their societies using a monopoly of violence called "the State." The State has done the following in the last 100 years:
We have tried the idea of "the nation-state for hundreds of years now." It has been a dismal failure. Let's try a state-less Free Market system.
Is that really a reckless proposal?
Two things are needed to stop this march of death:
- persuade the people who wear government uniforms that what they do is unethical or immoral.
- persuade those who salute or vote for these people that their lives will be improved once we abolish the machinery of death.
Too many people believe that without "governments," criminals -- murderers, thieves and kidnappers -- will:
• murder hundreds of innocent non-combatant civilians
• enslave thousands of human beings
• steal millions of dollars of private property.
Compare that with the record of "the State" above.
In 1994, private non-state criminals in the U.S. stole $28 million.
That same year, the government stole $2 BILLION -- one hundred times more -- through just one government revenue program: "asset forfeiture."
"But if we abolish the government in Washington D.C., we will not be able to defend ourselves, and we will be invaded and enslaved."
Yes, by other governments.
Imagine a silent invasion. An enemy government replaces all the people who currently wear U.S. government uniforms with the people who wear government uniforms in Russia or China. It all happens overnight, without a shot being fired. Would Americans notice the difference? You have been invaded and "enslaved." What difference would it make? Would your taxes go up if suddenly all U.S. government employees were Chinese? If the government forced you to bake a cake for a Communist Rally or a homosexual wedding, would you feel better about it solely because the gun pointed to your head was held by your next-door neighbor rather than a "commie" from China?
So let's make this a global project.
Let's persuade human beings in every nation that theft, murder, and kidnapping are immoral, even if conducted by people calling themselves "the government."
Let's abolish the United States using a treaty with the people of Russia who agree that both "governments" will resign and disappear simultaneously from the face of the earth. Let's get rid of all the nation-states at once.
We could form a non-profit organization to promote this idea and hire experts who could draw up legal blueprints which could be adopted as treaties by governments as their last official act, abolishing themselves.
We could call it, "The United Dis-Nations."
Christian Globalism: The Vine & Fig Tree Worldview
Friday, June 26, 2015
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ham has a constitutional right to be kosher.
Any business that refuses to confess that ham is kosher can now be shut down by the government, and the owner will lose everything she has worked for her entire life.
Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and every single person who was present in the state Constitutional ratifying conventions, believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No agency of the federal government should say that two men can be "married." No state government or agency should be compelled by the Federal Government to confess that a homosexual relationship is a "marriage."
In centuries of Anglo-American common law history, up until 2003, courts have unanimously acknowledged that marriage is an institution created by God, not by government. In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of the Founding Fathers when it declared: "Marriage was not originated by human law."
The Court could have ruled that every federal agency is free to acknowledge as "married" anyone who claims to be "married" even without any license from any state to that effect. This would have been a "libertarian" solution to the conflict. Instead, the Court decided to use coercion to compel states to confess that two men can be "married," contrary to the democratic will of the People expressed through referenda and legislatures, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and contrary to the Constitution, which without doubt by any sane and educated person, did not give the U.S. Supreme Court authority to compel states to confess that two men can be "married."
I admit I have not yet read the Court's full opinion:
- Scalia burns the Supreme Court as a group of ‘unrepresentative’ elitists in gay marriage ruling - The Washington Post
I'll probably enjoy the latter more than the former.
Here are a few notable quotes from the Court Syllabus:
"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples." p.3
The Court claims that a cultural revolution has occurred, such that same-sex "marriage" is now recognized culturally, and the Court should give its imprimatur to the new cultural consensus. But here the Court says that unless it compels states to legally bless popular trends, children hijacked into same-sex "marriages" will suffer a "stigma." This is contradictory. The Court has already said that people don't think this way any more. That's how people thought back when America was a Christian nation. The Court is actually trying to compel a cultural consensus.
"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." p.2
" the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." p.3Marriage is not about "personal" or "individual autonomy."
Marriage is not about love.
Marriage is not about sex.
- Is Marriage about Love? | Stand to Reason
Marriage is about commitment to God's order.
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28."Not a single person alive in America when the 14th Amendment was proposed, debated and allegedly ratified, believed that the 14th Amendment conferred or was intended to confer upon the federal judiciary the authority to order states to repudiate God's institution of Marriage.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
The biggest issue in the 2016 Presidential race will be whether the forces of smaller government can unite behind a single candidate to run against the candidate of the forces of bigger government.
"The forces of smaller government" are:
- Conservative Christians, a.k.a. "the religious right."
- Believe abortion and homosexuality (etc.) must be eradicated.
- Secular libertarians -- I'll call them "anarcho-capitalists"
- Don't care about, or even endorse, abortion and homosexuality (etc.).
Christian conservatives say they want smaller government, but they want a government big enough to fight abortionists, homosexuals, and Muslims.
Secular libertarians want smaller government, but they don't seem to care if mothers kill their own children, two (or more?) people of the same sex get "married," and don't realize that their secular worldview is no match for Islam.
Can these two groups agree on a candidate to run against the Big Government candidate?
If they don't, then the Republican candidate will either displease conservative Christians, who will stay at home rather than vote for another Mitt Romney who does not oppose abortion and homosexuality, or the Republican candidate will please social conservatives, but neo-conservatives (who despise conservative Christian morality) will vote for a hawk like Hillary, and secular libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Hillary will be crowned.
As it stands right now, I don't think Christians and libertarians can agree, and the reason is that conservatives -- even "Christian" conservatives -- do not really support smaller government.
Socially conservative Christians must become libertarians on the social issues: abortion, homosexuality, drugs, divorce, you name the "hot-button" issue. Only by moving toward the "anarchist" side of the political spectrum can these sins be eradicated.
In every case, Christian conservatives look to the government for solutions, forgetting that the government caused the problems in the first place, and will only make the problems worse.
Abortion is an interesting example. Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative Christians seeking government solutions to abortion. There is good reason to believe that the decline in abortion over the last decade does not represent an upsurge of Christian morality, but a decline in the "stigma" attached to out-of-wedlock births (which are now nearly "fashionable"), allowing single mothers to get support for the children they might otherwise have killed for convenience. This in turn suggests that Christians -- instead of giving loving support to unwed mothers -- gave them "stigma," and directed massive resources (which they might have employed in supporting unwed mothers and giving a Christian upbringing to their illegitimate children) to political lobbyists, to get laws passed which would, I suppose, put in prison mothers who kill their kids, or maybe have them executed. After they kill their kid.
Why is it that the mothers of 55 million babies since 1973 found the greedy, bloodthirsty abortion industry more attractive than Christians opening their heart, homes and wallets to support those children?
Christian conservatives also tend to support the "war on terror," which is really a Big Government Program to suppress Islam -- unless the "war on terror" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic terrorists, but is solely about expanding U.S. corporate hegemony and propping up the Dollar as an international reserve currency. The size of our military and its anti-Christian character would have astounded America's Founders. Even if the architects of U.S. foreign policy are concerned about the spread of false religions, using government to aid in "The Great Commission" is unChristian. And destroying the true religion using the military is even worse. If the Biblical prophets spoke truth, we should expect God to do to us what we did to Iraq.judgment on Christians, who have failed to carry out the "works of mercy" which are supposed to characterize Christians. Hospitals were built by Christians with Christian money. Modern Christians wanted government Medicare subsidies for their aging parents. Christians have given liberals an excuse to step in and give glory to the State. Christians alone could eliminate all health and welfare problems -- not only for other Americans, but for all the poor of the world. Prof. Ronald J. Sider notes;
“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog
But American Christians prefer a Frappuccino® and comfortable entertainment in their mega-churches. Let the government take care of the poor folks and the old folks.
Again, had Christians taken their responsibilities (and their financial power) seriously, advocates of "Obamacare" could never have gotten a foothold.
Further, the importance of providing education for all the poor of the earth should not be overlooked. Education is the foundation of Christian civilization. Global Christian education has staggering foreign policy implications. See the concept outlined on our Iraq page. Some Muslims understand this better than most Christians. See this extraordinary admission by Muslim leaders:
Sure, it's not easy to assume the financial responsibilities that come with obeying Christ when Caesar is working 24/7 to empty your pockets of everything you worked to earn. But the Bible says God sends Caesar and Pharaoh and Bush-Obama against the people that will not put God and His commandments first.
In every case, the institution we call "the State" or "civil government" eventually destroys Christian civilization.
- The State has destroyed education (which was originally created to make sure everyone could read the Bible),
- and healthcare,
- the Military is at war with the family (causing divorce and suicide)
- and tears the fabric of life at home and abroad
- 675,000 veterans of these wars have been granted disability
- More than 2 million American children have coped with a parent going to these wars
- As many as one half million of those children may have become clinically depressed
- The VA only began tracking war veteran suicides in 2008 even though rates now appear significantly higher than among comparable civilians
- Unemployment rates have been two percentage points higher among war veterans than civilians
- The military has increasingly off-loaded the burden of care for service members’ health onto their families, and mainly onto women
- Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003
- The Army’s use of the determination that a soldier has a “pre-existing condition” has saved it over $12.5 billion
- Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 75 percent more likely to die in car crashes than comparable civilians
- The United States destroyed the largest Christian community in the Arab world, overthrew a government that permitted open, public evangelism by Christians, and replaced it with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law, and left millions of dollars in military hardware for ISIS.
- The State is at war against Christian virtues.
- Washington D.C. promotes and imposes abortion and homosexuality around the world.
- The government is a model of violence as a solution to personal and social problems.
- Christians err grievously by voting for the "lesser of two evils," which is each and every candidate who does not trumpet the truth that "power corrupts," and legalized violence is the cause of every problem and the solution to none.
From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
- -- President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address
In no case is the government a better solution to social problems than Christians families, businesses, charities, and an army of voluntary associations, working outside the State, and sometimes against the State.
Christians need to realize that Radical libertarianism is the best way to advance socially conservative morality.
If you give the State an inch to do the work of the People of God, you give the State a mile to undercut it. Libertarians who do not oppose abortion and homosexuality -- but who actually oppose bigger government in practice -- do more to help Christians be "salt" and "light" and a "City upon a Hill," and therefore do more to end abortion and homosexuality than neo-conservative Republicans who solicit funds from the Christian Right with empty talk about "values." Christians should be libertarian with respect to political power; willing to endure accusations of trying to "impose a Theocracy" because we uphold a strong and clear moral standard. And above all, characterized by self-sacrificing love, which trusts in the Holy Spirit to change hearts.
Without a commitment to personal obedience and responsibility, it is all too likely that Christians in 2016 will once again vote for an Establishment Republican who promises government solutions to problems that can only be cured by Christians.
Please leave a comment if you can think of a social problem which is better solved (and was never caused in the first place) by the State, rather than by "the Church," that is, by Christians of every denomination who function as the Body of Christ.
We are not Christian anarchists because we do not want to obey God's Commandments. We are Christian anarchists because "archists" invented "the State" to evade God's Commandments.
The Conscience of an Anarchist [pdf] | Gary Chartier
Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life | Edward Peter Stringham | anarchist blueprint newly published by Oxford University Press.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Today (June 15) is the 800th Anniversary of the signing of the "Magna Carta" in 1215.
If you went to a school approved by the government, you know next to nothing about this document.
Probably the main reason the government doesn't want you to know about it is that the document is an explicitly Christian document.
It is proof that "Western Civilization" is really "Christian Civilization."
Take an hour out to read up on history.
Magna Carta -- The text of the document
Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta -- Breakpoint.org
Happy 800th Birthday - Paul Craig Roberts
Legitimizing the State - The problem with a Charter (making an agreement) with the State
Here's a discussion I had on The Magna Carta and Christian Civilization with a Secular Humanist back in 1998:
|The Liberty Window
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
From The Library of Congress
Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. and TenCommandments
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 05 Apr 1998 19:24:49 EDT
In article <1998033106354001.BAA13549@ladder03.news.aol.com>, email@example.com (EDarr1776) writes:
>I pointed out that, contrary to Kevin's assertion, the Supreme Court did not
>say that the mere posting of the 10 Commandments on a school wall is
>forbidden, but rather that government officials may not order the posting for
>Kevin said: >>So are you saying that it is constitutional for a school to
>of the 10 commandments? Have you read Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39?
>Sure doesn't sound like it.
>If a school were to post a series of codes that are illustrative of the
>heritage of U.S. law, and those codes were to include the 10 Commandments,
>the Court would probably let it stand. The Court itself has such an
>historical display in the bas reliefs in its chambers. If you include the
>Code of Hammurabi, the Koran, the Code Napoleonic, the works of Maimonides,
>the works of Solon -- sure, the Court would allow the Ten Commandments to be
>have been in many schools that feature the American Legions "documents of
>freedom," including the Ten Commandments. In context, it makes a lot of
Only if you're a Secular Humanist, who wants to deny the authority of the Christian religion. These codes contradict each other. Students are taught the lesson that they must make up their own religion as they go along. The Founders did not give equal weight to all religions. Some were "false," as Madison declared. The Constitution absolutely and unequivocally does not prohibit the states from teaching students that the Bible is the Word of God and other "writings" are not.
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code. . . Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down.
John Quincy Adams, Letters of JQA to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings, (1850), pp. 70-71
Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors 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. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
-- Sam Adams 1790 [To John Adams, who wrote back:
"You and I agree."]
One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.
-- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
Founder of Harvard Law School
[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.
(James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War)
>I haven't looked at Stone v. Graham for a few months -- but I don't
>think you will find anywhere the Court saying that posting such a code is, by
That is PRECISELY what the Court said. As you correctly surmised above, only by reducing God's Law to the same level as other "false" religions would the Court let the posting stand. The mind of man must be exalted above the Word of God, according to the Court.
>What is repugnant to the Constitution is the order that
>the Ten Commandments alone be posted, to illustrate the way kids should
How much better to have kids gunning each other down, as in Jonesboro, Ark.!! This thinking is repugnant to everything the Founders fought for. They would repudiate this thinking. They would consider your argument a danger to the Republic, just as Franklin urged Thomas Paine not to publish his scurrilous *Age of Reason.*
>I said earlier: >It DID say that the state legislature may not order any
>>version of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom of the
>>in order to promote Christianity. <<
>Kevin said: >>Was it the purpose of Kentucky to "promote Christianity," or
>students aware of the foundations of Western Civilization?
> [T]he legislature required the following notation in small print at the
> bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments: "The secular
> application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption
> as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common
> Law of the United States." 1978 Ky. Acts, ch. 436, 1 (effective June 17,
> 1978), Ky. Rev. Stat. 158.178 (1980).<<<
>It's always been curious to me why Kentucky refused to acknowledge the
>influence of the Magna Carta on U.S. law,
The Magna Charta? Do you even know the basic issue behind the Magna Charta?
>claiming that the 10 Commandments
>was essentially the only influence.
"Only?" No such claim was made. It clearly was the "fundamental" influence in Western Law. Not Buddha, not Solon. Why is this so difficult for you infidels to understand? KY did not "refuse" to acknowledge the Magna Charta. But if you had limited wall space in a classroom, would you post the Ten Commandments, or the Magna Charta? Well, fortunately, Kentucky didn't ask you. But even if they had, the result would have been "unconstitutional":
Harvard Prof. Harold Berman:
In 1208 Pope Innocent III placed all England under interdict and excommunicated King John, threatening to depose him and give his crown to Philip Augustus of France. The reason was John's refusal to accept the pope's nominee as Archbishop of Caterbury. "England groaned under the interdict." Churches remained closed for years. King John counterattacked by putting his own men in clerical offices, but he ultimately submitted; in fact he gave England to the pope and received it back as a feif, swearing an oath of vassalage and agreeing to send a yearly tribute to Rome. In 1215 King John, in the very first provision of Magna Carta, declared quod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit -- "that the English Church be free" -- which meant, of course, free under the papacy from control by kings or barons. Law and Revolution, pp. 262-63
The right and duty to disobey the divinely appointed king-autocrat when he violates fundamental law was based on the belief that that fundamental law was itself divinely instituted. Popes and kings made laws, but they did so as deputies of God; not they themselves but "God is the source of all law." Thus the concept of the rule of law was supported by the prevailing religious ideology.
Law & Revolution, p. 293
Now, as I see it, the basic debate on this board is this: I say that the civil government has a duty to conform to Biblical/Christian principles. You say the state has an obligation to be secular. The Magna Charta is CLEARLY not on your side, but on the side of Kentucky and the Ten Commandments.
Shall we read the document?
THE MAGNA CARTA (The Great Charter):
John, by the grace of God,
Ooops, fails the Lemon Test already
king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul,
oh dear . . .
and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church
how embarrassing . . .
and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, [names withheld] of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope . . . .
1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.
All the rights subsequently guaranteed are stated in order to establish the proper church and ensure that God's Law is followed.
Some of the rights are curious:
10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
But properly understood, they are not secular.
27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.
45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.
48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.
"Chosen by honest men" is a Scriptural concept.
54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.
61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security,
62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.
>That's a silly position that not even
>you would defend, Kevin. And it didn't wash with the Court. Kentucky did
>not intend to make a secular display, as evidenced by their erroneous
>statement of history, and their completely ignoring other more relevant
No document is more relevant to "the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."
>What about the Declaration of Independence? What about the
Neither of those documents establishes whether and why killing, stealing, and raping are immoral and should be illegal.
>Kentucky's position was silly and indefensible, though I admit
>they wasted a lot of taxpayers' money trying to defend it.
Words of a fool. The collapse of Western Civilization can be laid at your feet.
>Kevin said: >>But of course, no matter what the state says its motivations
>are, the omniscient Sup Ct will impute evil motivations and say, "Oh, no,
>you're just doing that to promote Christianity. BAD BOY!"<<<
>As with most of these cases, the conspiracy to put forth a phony set of
>motivations always fails. If the legislature were concerned with the
>heritage of U.S. common law, why didn't they order a high school course in
>common law? Their argument that third grade students needed to know the
>heritage of common law is guffaw-worthy.
>Do you seriously believe the legislature was worried about Western
Western Civilization has pretty much been trashed by Secular Humanism. At this point, the biggest worry of Kentucky teachers is that some student who thinks he is god is going to gun them and a few students down. But the Legislature SAID they were worried about "Western Civilization," that's what the plaque below the Ten Commandments said (not "the Word of God" or anything religious), and it is outrageous that the Humanists on the Supreme Court imposed their religion on the schools of Kentucky.
The Constitution is dead meat, thanks to Secular Humanists.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
I learned something about insects today.
I used to think "drones" were "workers." This is evident on several of my old webpages. For example, on this page (which I notice was last edited on Monday, July 13, 1998, 12:10:36 AM) I spoke of the "worker-drone" who was held captive by the modern "American dream" of working an unfulfilling job to pay the mortgage and accumulate the trinkets of modern society, but not aspiring to any higher spiritual purpose:
In the material realm, life in the 1990's consists mainly of a dreary 8-5 job shuffling papers or manufacturing weapons for the New World Order, making interest payments on a mortgage, and keeping the volume down on the kids' Nintendo. This "middle-class" lifestyle differs radically from that envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. His land-owning "yeoman farmer" was much closer to the Biblical ideal of the wealthy Patriarch Abraham (Genesis 13:2), and both are a far cry from the secularized American worker-drone. The televised vision of the "American Dream" effectively serves the agenda of the ruling elites in Washington. As millions of serfs labor, the lords increase their wealth.
But "drones" are not "workers."
Among termites, "The sterile castes are the workers and soldiers. Both are wingless and usually lack eyes."
That's what I was thinking of: a wingless worker who lacks eyes. (There's a profound metaphor there.)
The common meaning of the word "drone" has changed a great deal since I wrote that page above. Today the most common identification of a "drone" is an unmanned bomber or surveillance aircraft.
In the world of insects, as I was thinking of them, "drones" were mindless workers. In reality, drones are not workers, they are worthless maters. They do nothing of value until they die impregnating the Queen bee.
Worker bees are females. Drones are males. (More metaphors.) Other than mating with the Queen bee, drones are worthless. They don't work, they just eat honey.
In Episodes of Insect Life, Volume 1, L. M. Budgen observes that drones, because of "their worthless qualities, may fairly be compared to the aristocracy of a state, where birth, not worth, makes the man."
Monday, May 18, 2015
Here's an interesting article about the recent parade in Russia commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Russian Army:
The author has fallen for the propaganda of the military parade.
Many people will agree that National Socialism (also known as Nazism -- "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialismus, the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was a great evil.
Many people will agree that International Socialism (also known as Communism, the ideology spread by Moscow) is evil.
A growing number of people around the world are coming to agree that "democracy" (also known as "freedom," "free enterprise," "free market," the ideology spread by those who call themselves a "Constitutional Republic") is also evil. Those who call it evil might also call it "crony capitalism," or "fascism." (It has very little to do with freedom and freed markets.)
There is growing concern about Russia and China working together to spread Communism. (Or whatever you want to call their form of "government.") Many nations have long been concerned with the United States spreading "democracy" in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, and many other nations.
There is good reason to believe that the United States Federal Government is the most evil and most dangerous entity on the planet. "The enemy of mankind."
Thankfully, the United States is dying. It might be that the U.S. will ignite another world war just to protect its crumbling hegemony, but in the long run, the kind of imperialism and mass death promoted by the U.S. during the last 150 or so years cannot be maintained long into the 21st century.
World War II was a war against Christian civilization. Franklin Roosevelt, led by communists in the White House, brought the U.S. into the war to protect the spread of communism in Eastern Europe and Asia. The United States is responsible in large part for the casualties of the war itself (as many as 90 million) and the deaths caused by Communism in China (76 million). The carnage of two atomic bombs dropped by the U.S. was dwarfed by the massive Allied firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, and other major cities.
No rational Christian can support World War II. Russia was not any better off materially, financially, or spiritually under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler. Good arguments can be made that Hitler could not have terrorized the Russian people from Germany as effectively as Stalin did from Moscow. Jesus expressly commanded His followers not to resist invasion and military occupation. More than a hundred million human beings died to make sure International Socialism prevailed over National Socialism. Private Property, including architecture and art representing centuries of human progress, produced and appreciated from the depths of the human heart and imagination, were destroyed on a massive scale. Again, to make sure International Socialism prevailed over National Socialism. This is truly a form of insanity, lunacy, madness. What word describes such lethal society-wide sociopathy as massive destruction over two obviously false antitheses?
In Moscow, hundreds of thousands of Russians, many with portraits "of the estimated 27 to perhaps 30 million Soviet citizens who never returned alive from World War II" watched a parade of soldiers and weapons of mass destruction through the main boulevard in Moscow, and elsewhere throughout the nation. The soldiers of the Russian Army should have reached the same conclusion Muhammad Ali reached, when he decided to stay out of the Vietnam war and face prison rather than kill or be killed in a senseless war.
World War II was an "unnecessary war," to quote the title of Pat Buchanan's book. The parades in Russia celebrated the war rather than mourning it, and mourned the soldiers who fought it rather than forgive them their trespasses, and honor those who stayed home to raise their families. And the author of the article above seems also to have been "impressed" rather than depressed.
Jesus came to bring "Peace on Earth." In many ways, the world is more peaceful to day than it was before Jesus came. A huge percentage of human beings in the ancient world died violent deaths, whereas today over 7 billion people enjoy levels of peace and prosperity which the ancient world could not have imagined. Twelve disciples have changed the lives of billions of people and many nations.
But we have a great distance to go. The pro-military parade in Russia is taking us backward. Those who yearn for a "united" America, in solidarity with "the troops" and "proud" of "our government," are also taking us toward war and totalitarianism and away from freedom and peace.
We must "beat our swords into plowshares" (which some derisively call "pacifism"), to the point where we abolish the myth of legitimate aggression ("government," the absence of which some call "anarchism"), and trust in "Divine Providence" rather than government coercion. America once thought of herself as a nation "under God." Today this is ruled out as "Theocracy." The alternative is mass death under atheistic despotism.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Today is the National Day of Prayer in the United States.
Resources for the National Day of Prayer
- A Proclamation by President John Adams, March 6, 1799
- Notice that the emphasis is on our need to repent before God.
- Presidential Proclamation -- National Day of Prayer, 2015 | The White House
- Notice how prayer is seen as an offense against "religious freedom"
- Prayer is, at best, something that is self-empowering, not really God-centered
- National Day of Prayer - Obama vs. Bush
- Hypocrisy is better than hostility
- National Day of Prayer Proclamation George W. Bush, 2002
- Thomas Jefferson, Conspiracy Theory and the Day of Prayer
- Government-Sponsored Prayer
- The government used to acknowledge that God is God and the government is not
- Two Prayers - Two Americas
- National Day of Prayer, 2008
- Prayer of Jabez as told by Charles H. Spurgeon
- America: To Pray or Not to Pray: David Barton
- America's Decline since the government began opposing prayer
- Hindu Prayers in the Senate
- National Day of Prayer, 2006
- Prayer is
- • an offering up of our desires unto God
• for things agreeable to His will,
• in the name of Christ,
• with confession of our sins,
• and thankful acknowledgement of His mercies.
From the Westminster Standards in 180 Days.
- Day 145: How to Pray, part 1
- Day 146: How to Pray, part 2
- Day 147: How to Pray, part 3
- Day 148: The Lord's Prayer, part 1
- Day 149: The Lord's Prayer, part 2
- Day 150: The Lord's Prayer, part 3 - "Thy Kingdom Come"
- Day 151: The Lord's Prayer, part 4 - "Thy Will Be Done"
- Day 152: The Lord's Prayer, part 5 - "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread"
- Day 153: The Lord's Prayer, part 6 - "Forgive Us Our Debts"
- Day 154: The Lord's Prayer, part 7 - "Lead us Not into Temptation"
- Day 155: The Lord's Prayer, part 8 - "For Thine is the Kingdom"
Monday, April 27, 2015
Just 30 years ago, in a Georgia case, the Supreme Court upheld state laws which made it a crime to engage in homosexual acts. A crime. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Writing for the Court, Justice White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road to "illegitimacy."
The Court looked back on thousands of years of human history and the entire history of the United States, and said:
It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law, and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. [Footnote 5] In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. [Footnote 6] In fact, until 1961, [Footnote 7] all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.Then, less than 20 years later, the Court reversed itself. Lawrence and Garner v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) The Court's reasoning in this case should have overruled Roe v. Wade, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent (begins p. 586).
Tomorrow the Court will hear a case which may result in the most "facetious" opinion in American history, sending the Court to the end of the road to complete "illegitimacy," by ruling that homosexuality is a fundamental "right," and that calling it a "sin" (as the Bible does) is hateful "animus" without a "rational" basis, and that America must officially declare that two homosexuals can be genuinely, truly "married" in the eyes of God.
It is staggering that thousands of years of human history can be swept away in less than 30 years. It is more staggering that Americans could be forced -- by being threatened with fines, incarceration, and the destruction of the businesses they have worked a lifetime to build -- to publicly applaud, honor, celebrate, and affirm behavior which was once universally recognized as being contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Such a decision would mean the end of the First Amendment as the framers of the Bill of Rights knew it.
Homosexual conduct should not be punished by the government by fines, being locked in a cage with a violent psychopath, or firing squad. Neither should the refusal of an artist to portray the immoral act in a laudatory way.
You should take a moment right now to pray for the attorneys who will be arguing this case tomorrow, and for the Justices who will be rendering their decision in the weeks to come.