Posted on 10/16/2003 7:34:12 AM PDT by Gargantua
Time To Engage God's (America's) Enemies
It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing. It's time for Christians to pull our heads out of the sand and take a stand.
One man in California has the Supreme Court of this land now reviewing whether the phrase "under God" should be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance. The Chief Justice of State of Alabama cannot have a display of the Ten Commandments on courthouse property, despite that they are commonly acknowledged to be the basis for all of Western Law. A high school in Louisiana is being sued by the ACLU for saying prayers before football games.
The Liberal Secular Extremists cite the mythical "wall of separation" clause... which appears nowhere in our Constitution.
This is a war, and it is a war to remove every mention of God from every corner of American public life. The goal here is not to enforce our Founders' intent in having written the Constitution, rather it is to eradicate the single source of goodness, truth, and justice (and all of our Constitutionally listed rights...!) the world has in its possession... the Holy Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If indeed our Rights as enumerated in our Constitution are inalienable—that is, cannot be taken from us—because, as our founders wrote, they are granted to us by God the Creator Himself, what praytell becomes of those "Rights" once God is forbidden His rightful place... or even any place... in our society or Government?
If the Christians in America, a nation founded by Christians upon the solid rock of the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, do not fight back with everything God has blessed us with, then we are giving victory to an evil which intends to consume us. We are allowing the immoral to dictate the terms to the moral, and that is then game, set, and match.
There is far more at stake here than whether Washington was a Deist, or whether one sentence from Jefferson's letter to some guy in Connecticut should be used to supersede and reinterpret our entire Constitution. These are not valid arguments, and The Library of Congress has extensive documentation available online which dispels any such deceit.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
For this war to have gotten to the advanced stage where it now sits on our doorstep and snarls at us like the Hounds of Hell unleashed is the fault not of the minions of Satan who merely do the bidding of their vile master, rather it is the fault of every Christian in this once God-fearing nation who has sat idly by and hoped it would go away.
It is not going to go away. It is coming for us... in our homes, our schools, our places of work and our places of worship. It is time to take a stand and speak the Truth. Then speak It again. And again.
Inasmuch as this conflict, for the time being, remains a war of ideas and ideology, it is still possible to fight it just by speaking out, by letting the Holy Spirit within us move our hearts and tongues to take a vocal and unrelenting stand for what is right.
Whether our discourse in this matter offends some Muslims or Krishnas is not at issue. It is, in fact, a non-issue, and has no place in our deliberations. It is a diversion concocted by those who hate God.
The only issue here is whether our discourse offends God. We can pray that it lifts Him up in praise and glorifies Him, for that in the only way that we will succeed in our quest.
We must raise an outcry that reaches not only to the ACLU, not only to our schools, not only to the courts, not only to the Congress of the United States...
...but one which reaches straight to Heaven, for it is there, and there alone, where all hope for mankind—and America—lies.
May God give us His will, the strength to fight this good fight.
Actually, it demeans their credibility since they can't cite one law that Moore broke in posting the decalog. Can you? If he broke no law, then it is illegal for a judge to declare it illegal - judges can't make law. Who is credible? Moore. Who is not? The morons in black robes who ruled against Moore. Separation of church and state DOES NOT EXIST except in the minds of liberals.
Other than emotional floundering, is there any written refutation of The Age of Reason? If it's just the typical "Godless Heathen!" type of name calling, I'm not interested, but if it's logical refutation I am. Is there something you'd recommend?
Deism did not take hold in America and it had no influence in the founding of our government.
To cite Paine in one breath, and then to make this statement, is a real jaw dropper. Paine had no influence? Jefferson had no influence? Puh-leaze.
Wrong. "Year of our Lord" - who is that? Krishna? And let's be clear - EVERY SINGLE WORD in that document was carefully thought out.
Only a biased revisionist would try to say that the U.S. was not a Christian nation at its founding. You already admitted our founders were almost ALL Christians. Do you suppose that they just ignored their worldview while writing these landmark documents? Hardly. Your argument is absurd. I can provide quote after quote.
It is said that Hamilton, asked about this, sarcastically replied "we forgot". Do you really think they did, with men like Luther Martin there to remind them? It would have been so easy to add such a reference to, for example, the Preamble, but none was. An accident?
Martin? hahahha. He wasn't even a major player. Try reading Gov. Morris (most active member of Convention) and writer of the Constitution, or John Jay (contributor to Fed. Papers). Hamilton was a devout Christian and everything he did reflected that. Furthermore, the founders relied upon CHRISTIAN philosphers as their guide in forming a govt (Locke - Decl.), Montesquieu (sep. of powers), Blacktone, Puffendorf, Grotius (Law). There is ZERO DOUBT.
The Declaration was a statement of "why", not a statement of "how". Try to claim, for example, that the Controlled Substances Act is not legitimate law under the "pursuit of happiness" clause of the Declaration. It won't fly.
Yes it is the why, and the Const. is the how. The Decl. set forth our GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS and the Const. secures those rights! The Const. cannot be understood without the Declaration. Then there's the Northwest Ordinance (1789) - read that lately? It's a Christian document. Mayflower You don't understand pursuit of happiness - it does not mean PERSONAL SELFISH HAPPINESS, but the happiness of the majority. For better insight into this, read John Eidsomore's Christianity and the Constitution. Who caresa bout the Contr. Substance Act - that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Jefferson said that the First Amendment required separation of church and state. Madison, whose ideas of government were quite different, said the Constitution "strongly guarded" the separation of religion and government. It's clear that that was their intent.
I was hoping you would try this. Jefferson said this in his Danbury Baptist letter and it was in the context of PROTECTING THE BAPTISTS FROM THE STATE, not vice versa. The church is people and it is people that need protection from tyranny. The state is a non-entity and requires no protection - people need protection, just as people needed protection from the STATE-Church of England. Furthermore, the phrase "separation of church and statte" was NOT MENTIONED ONE TIME IN THE DEBATES ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT and those records are all available to confirm that.
As far as your statement about Barton goes, it's a logical fallacy to say that just because Barton may have got some quotes wrong that ALL his quotes are wrong. The 1892 case did indeed declare that the U.s. is a Christian nation. More facts:
Congress printed the first bible (aitken bible - 1782) - call the separation police!
Congress paid for missionary trips to the Indians!
Our founding fathers started the American Bible Society, American Tract society, and Sunday School Union - so much for keeping their faith private!
The Declaration of Independence mentions God 4 times. What God is that? Buddha? Do you suppose that our Christian founders would have signed it if they meant some other God? Think again.
Over and over again, our founders declared that morality comes from religion (Christianity) and that you can't have morality except from religion (Adams, Witherspoon, Hopkinson, Washington, Hamilton, Morris, etc. etc.) said this. Need quotes? And they also said that the constitution "was written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." (Adams) So, if the Constitution requires morality and morality only comes from religion (Christianity), what does that tell you? hmmm?
Try reading Eidsmore, Verna Hall, Marshall Foster. Stop reading your revisionist authors. Only PRIMARY SOURCES have any credibility, and they must be used in their full context.
Yes, I can provide quotes for you tomorrow. My sources are not with me. He was blasted by Morris, Witherspoon, Jay, among others. Franklin warned him not to publish it. I have that quote too.
To cite Paine in one breath, and then to make this statement, is a real jaw dropper. Paine had no influence? Jefferson had no influence? Puh-leaze.
Paine was an exception. My statement stands. It did not take hold in America. I didn't say there wasn't a smattering of deism - IT DIDN'T TAKE HOLD. The founders were Christian, not deists. It did not influence any of our founding documents nor our form of government. Try improving your reading comprehension.
These are tired arguments and skimpy. Is this the best you got? Just as you secular humanists act on your worldview, Christians do as well. Do you think a Chrsitian would go along with a humanist agenda? Think again. You don't understand Christianity. It is the antithesis of humanism. The 1st Amendment is meant to prevent a NATIONAL church and that is all. It does not prohbit the government from engaging in religious activity (which it did as seen in my earlier examples!) or people from exhibiting religious behavior wherever and whenever they want. Engaging in religious activity is not tantamount to a state church. The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." and they are the ONLY ones who can establish a state church. Roy Moore can't and you can't and a judge can't. Only Congress.
The treaty of tripoli has a lot of controversy surrounding it. For every single exmaple you have like this, I can come up with 100 Christian quotes and examples. If you want to go tit for tat, I will overwhelm you with quotes and facts. Enough of this nonsense. The U.S. was a Christian nation - and only a biased or ignorant person would try to say otherwise.
You're right on this. I've read it. Franklin didn't challenge the truth of it - he thought publishing it was unwise as it would piss off a lot of people - as it did. Publishing tranformed Paine from hero to pariah almost immediately.
Paine makes a long and very specific point-by-point case in The Age of Reason. I was wondering if you'd heard of a point-by-point refutation. If not, don't sweat it, I can Google for one.
It's beyond a mere law.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Is Judge Roy Moore the same as the U.S. Congress? No. Did he pass a law establishing a national religion? No. Try again. Your interpretation of the 1st amendment is egregiously bad.
Whose rights were denied with that decalog? No one's. No one was forced to do anything. I'm glad you aren't a judge on the court - that's all we need is another bad judge who judges according to whim and not the black and white words of the law.
Try taking off your blinders.
Three prominent folks were Deists - Paine, Jefferson and Franklin. There may have been others, but I'm not aware of them.
Whether or not "Deism influenced any of our founding documents" is certainly debatable. What would the Declaration have read like if Patrick Henry had written it? There would have been more references to Jesus and Our Lord and God than in the New Testament ! Jefferson's references in the Declaration to "nature's God" and "our Creator" are certainly not anti-Christian, but they're much more Deistic than strictly Christian. If you're familiar with Deistic theology, you'll remember they held that the Testament of God was in his works - i.e. nature - and that it was self-evident.
Instead of ad hominems about "reading comprehension" (and I'd bet a large some of money yours doesn't test better than mine) why not discuss the issue?
You are not aware of them because they don't exist. You are being ridiculous. Have you been reading this thread? That's 3 out of 250! I challenge you to name just 10 more! Paine had nothing to do with the ratification of the Constitution and Jefferson was in France. Franklin called for prayer and cited 5 bible verses at the Const. convention and claimed that God won the revolutionary war - the God of the bible! Deists don't do that. Do you cite bible verses?
Whether or not "Deism influenced any of our founding documents" is certainly debatable. What would the Declaration have read like if Patrick Henry had written it? There would have been more references to Jesus and Our Lord and God than in the New Testament ! Jefferson's references in the Declaration to "nature's God" and "our Creator" are certainly not anti-Christian, but they're much more Deistic than strictly Christian. If you're familiar with Deistic theology, you'll remember they held that the Testament of God was in his works - i.e. nature - and that it was self-evident.
Hahahha. Again, you are ignorant of history. "Nature's God" comes from the Christian thinkers- Puffendorf and Grotius and Locke. They are referring to the Christian God. If you knew anything about the backgroud of these documents, you would know that.
Is Christianity a "group of faiths?" And is Thanksgiving day being a holiday a "privilege"? Let's assume yes and yes. Surely that sort of cultural thing must be acceptable! But the modern abstractist interpretation has reached the absurd stage where Thanksgiving as a holiday would have to be outlawed.
There is a real possibility that SCOTUS first amendment doctrine will someday be changed to allow a more realistic, and less odious interpretation, more in line with original intent. It will still require fairness to people of all faiths. But it won't form itself into a pretzel to try to apply to some mythical country in which there is no dominant religion.
I didn't say they were entitled to it; I said they will get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.