The rise of neo-paganism (No, this one is NOT SATIRE)

America was founded by Christian Puritans, who had a deep aversion to idolatry, popery, and magic. The hardships and dangers of their predicament made them cling to their religion as the one thing that justified the perilous pilgrimage to the New World. And from time to time they would tremble before the thought that paganism lay not only around them, but within, where it was all the more dangerous because hidden from view. So began the trials of suspected witches and the vigilant denunciations of neighbors that tore the New England communities apart.

Constant immigration has diversified the religious inheritance of the United States. Nevertheless the country remained until recently predominantly Christian, with a continuing aversion to pagan cults and superstitions, and a trust in the Bible as the common inheritance of the Judeo-Christian faiths. Indeed the United States has been held together more effectively by its Bible culture than by its Constitution: for the Bible has shaped the language, the morality, and the aspirations of ordinary Americans and provided them with a common frame of reference. American patriotism is scarcely thinkable without the Judeo-Christian God as its Almighty Guardian, and it is hardly surprising to find that the outlying communities in America-many of them suspicious of the Constitution as a weapon used against them by urban liberals-cling to the Bible as their most trusted guide. Debates over school prayer, over creationism and the curriculum, over abortion and sex education, are not, in America, the halfhearted affairs they are in Europe. On the contrary, they are at the center of politics since they affect the deep-down loyalty of many Americans to the settlement under which they live.

Strange things are now happening to this religious inheritance. The Christian churches have clung to their congregations, but often at the cost of dividing and subdividing into ever more marginal sects, each striving to accommodate the eccentricities of some obstinate community of believers. Almost none of the old denominations retains any centralized authority that can control the doctrine, liturgy, or membership of its peripheral congregations, while new cults and new services spring up everywhere, as dormant religious passions ignite like forest fires. In Europe we observe the slow, steady decline in faith, and the gradual disappearance of human hopes behind a cloud of skepticism. In America, however, every loss of faith is met by a gain, as new religious practices rise in the places vacated by the old. That this should be happening now, in the age of scientific inquiry, is testimony to the strength of American society, which finds new sources of hope beneath the never-ending stream of disappointment. Nevertheless, these sources of hope make less and less reference to the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition and are more and more pagan in tone. That which the Pilgrim fathers found most horrendous- witchcraft-is the latest, and one of the most successful, among the pagan cults now colonizing America.

Of course the witches-devotees of "Wicca," as they like to say-strenuously argue that their faith has been traduced in the past, that it is older and deeper and more spiritual than Christianity, and that it was branded as evil only because it was seen as a threat to the "patriarchal" culture. And by way of proving the point they have cobbled together a very up-to- date and user-friendly version of goddess-worship, which answers so well to the spiritual hunger of modern Americans as to cast serious doubt on its antiquity. Their basic principle-"Harm none and do what you will"-is the gospel of liberalism dressed up as law, rather than the lack of it; their "covens" are in many cases vamped-up feminist circles, devoted to boosting the confidence of women downtrodden by men, or at any rate by their own image of men; their symbols-the pentagram, the altar, the nine- inch daggers or "athames," the long robes, and the leaping over flames-may have ancient precedents, but they come to the Wiccans from 19th-century charlatans like Eliphas Levi and Aleister Crowley, men who cannily judged the spiritual hunger of the new middle classes and thereby notched up women by the score. Indeed, as Philip G. Davis has shown (Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neo-pagan Feminist Spirituality), the Wiccan theology is derived not from the old forms of goddess-worship, but from the writings of 19th-century commentators like Johann Jacob Bachofen, who invented the notion of a lost matriarchal past in a work that is now entirely discredited.

Still, religion will survive any amount of skeptical scholarship, and the Wiccans are no exception. They offer the commodity for which modern Americans are hungry-the conversion experience, the transition from dark to light, lost to found, outsider to insider. In comparison with this redemptive gift, other things are of no account. The covens have been spreading through the suburbs; even the military now recognizes the Wiccans as a "minority religion," with the right to hold rituals and classes for serving personnel. Weak though their doctrines may be from any intellectual or historical perspective, they are a triumph of applied anthropology. Feminism, environmentalism, and liberalism all come together in a religion that recognizes the goddess as the object of worship, the priestess as her representative, and the earth and its seasons as the source of sacred rites.

It is tempting to regard the Wiccans in the same light as the other cults that have recently sprung up in America-the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, the Moonies, the church of the notorious Rev. Jim Jones. There are, however, two important features that distinguish them. There is no leader or founder of the Wiccan cult; and there is no sacred text. Witchcraft is a religion without any structure of command and without any written law. True, there is an attempt to compensate in the use of antique and fustian language-"yclad," "mote," "hallowmas." But the religion recognizes no objective authority to which the worshipper must submit. On the contrary, it is a religion of "empowerment," to use the feminist word. Spells and brews, chants and talismans are all weapons in the hands of the individual Wiccan, who gains power over self and others through the manipulation of things. True, the Wiccan draws on mysterious cosmic forces; but the purpose of the spell and ritual is to join these forces to yourself-to amplify your own power and so achieve a kind of here-and-now redemption.

In this, at least, the Wiccans are close to the witches as they were once imagined. The witch was anathema to the Christian believer because she had arrogated to herself the powers that belong to the Almighty. Her spells were the antithesis of the sacred text-indeed, it was often thought that they consisted in reciting Biblical or liturgical texts backwards. For they were expressions of the individual will, rather than admonitions and counsels of a higher power. All the discipline of religion-which consists in obedience to the divine command and a day-to-day study of its meaning- was negated in the Puritan image of the witch, which is why witches were so greatly feared. They were the archetype of the liberated human being- the human being who had stepped free from the chains of morality and seized the world and its glories for herself.

For this very reason, however, witchcraft has a singular appeal to modern Americans, increasing numbers of whom are brought up without any knowledge of a sacred text and without the language and the concepts of the Judeo- Christian tradition. The idea that religion might be a matter of obedience and example strikes them as weird; the idea that it is a matter of the self and its empowerment connects immediately with the surrounding secular culture.

But why isn't feminism enough? Why the need for a Wiccan religion? What is added by religion that is absent from the politics of the group?

The answer is enchantment. Science has disenchanted the universe and deprived us of our place at its center. Human beings cannot live with this demoralized world. They need to see their environment as their tribal forebears saw it: as an enchanted place, which mysteriously returns our glance. The spell answers directly to this need, since it enables the witch to reanimate her universe. It gives supernatural power to a human being, and so rescues her from nature.

Rituals, spells, and incantations are deliberate defiances of reason. They place nonsense in the center of people's lives and ask them to unite in believing it. People on their own are nothing-victims of the natural world, and at the mercy of their own skepticism. People in a group, however, have a power that is more than the sum of their individual efforts. And the spell symbolizes this power. Alone you could not possibly believe in it, since alone you have only reason as your guide. Together, however, you can believe anything. In short, the Wiccans have rediscovered the phenomenon observed by the anthropologist Arnold van Gennep-the rite of passage, which purges the individual of his isolation and grants him membership in the tribe. The rite of passage works by summoning occult powers, by standing outside nature and against it, and by reassuring the individual that, absorbed into the community, he cannot be harmed.

And that is what is missing from modern life, and especially from life in the American city. The most important rite of passage in recent Western societies was marriage-the consecration before the community of a lifelong commitment. The collapse of marriage is not the result of feminism, but the cause of it. Without lasting marriages, women have no real guarantee of security, and no reason for trusting men. If men cannot be trusted, then women have to set up on their own. Feminism turns on the masculine realm and deconstructs it, representing it as a realm of lies, manipulation, and the brutal misuse of power. It thereby reassures women that they don't need men in any case. But it relies on rational arguments, sociological theories, and objective policies-so leaving the heart unconsoled. What is needed is a new form of membership, a new rite of passage, and a new lifelong commitment-hence a new form of nonsense. In other words, what is needed is witchcraft. This is surely why the Wiccans are expanding, even though they have neither a leader, nor a doctrine, nor a text.

On the other hand, a cult that spreads so quickly, and that has so little substance when it comes to answering the great metaphysical questions, is ripe for takeover by the real witches. Strong personalities like Aleister Crowley preyed on the vulnerable loners who had lost their religion but not their religious need, and who wanted to throw themselves beneath the juggernaut of some crushing ego. Modern America has seen the emergence of these leaders-Koresh and Jones being symptomatic. And it has discovered that their promise of a new life is also a death threat. For the moment, the Wiccans speak only of peace and love and finding oneself. But without a doctrine or a text to protect them, they may soon find themselves opening the door to the Devil. Those old Puritans were wrong about many things; but they were not entirely wrong about witchcraft.

I dispise your sneering disdain for those of who who believe in Christ,

Obviously when my temper rises, my spelling skills decline. Regardless, your snotty comment about the resurrection of Christ can't go unanswered. I would quote that post directly, but apparently I'm not the only one who thinks you are abusive, as it has been deleted.

The best piece of historical evidence we have, outside the Gospels, is the Holy Shroud. The shroud was found folded in the empty tomb of Christ. For centuries all that could be seen on it was faint markings and bloodstains. But, with the advent of modern scientific techniques, the shroud has been minutely examined and found to contain so complete a record of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that it is virtually impossible that it is a forgery, or the burial cloth of anyone else.

Among the facts related to the gospels, which are confirmed on the shroud are the following: bruises on the face, the scourging, which was by two men, one taller than the other, and which covered the entire body; the crown of thorns, which was a cap, not a circlet; the lance wound in the heart and the emission of a watery fluid as well as blood; the nail wounds, which were in the wrists, not the palms, and which severed the median nerves, causing the thumbs to be jammed against the palms, so that the thumbs are invisible on the shroud; the carrying of the cross, which rubbed against the shoulders and produced a large abrasion; the falls, attested by the wounds on the knees and traces of dirt; and the crucifixtion itselt, attested to by the differing patterns of blood caused by the crucified man's raising and lowering of his body in order to breathe.

The shroud image also shows that two coins were placed over the eyes, as was customary in Jewish burials. By high magnification is was determined that the coins were minted by Pontius Pilate in Palestine between October 28 AD and Oct. 31 AD.

The shroud even provides indirect confirmation of the ressurection. If the body in the shroud had decayed in the normal way, or even remained in the shroud for more than a few days, the shroud would have been discolored and eventually iteslf decayed. If the body had been stolen or removed by other natural means, large portions of the shroud would have adhered to the body, as any cloth would adhere to open wounds, and been torn off. In both cases, any image would have been destroyed.

If you would like to discuss the unreliable carbon-14 testing or other arguments for the shroud being a fake, be my guest. I'm ready.

Are you trying to argue that God exists because the consequences of a God not existing are undesirable (argument from the consequences/argument from wishful thinking), or are you just trying to cloud the issue with a red herring?

Far be it from me to desire cloudiness on these most critical of issues...individual salvation and the effects on society and history of abandoning the True God for false gods, either individually or as a nation.

Why is what I said a mystery to you?

But of course that is not what I believe. I believe what Christian Americans have believed all along:

That all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...and that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

If you genuinely believe that[all good things flow from God], then you must be a dualist (which I doubt you are) because, by logical extension, all bad things must flow from somewhere else, which would make Old Scratch co-equal with God.

C.S. Lewis answers this in Mere Christianity in the chapter "The Invasion."

I personally think that next to Christianity, Dualism is the manliest and most sensible creed on the market. But it has a catch in it....

Lewis goes on to describe the two independent good and bad "powers, or spirits, or gods." Both existing from eternity, neither made the other, neither "has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other bad."

Then Lewis attends to the charge that it's all a matter of taste. Which is Good and which is Bad? So he lays out for us some revealing comparisons and juxtapositions of the two forces, until we must confront the paradox here:

If "being good" meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, the good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other is actually right.

But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to the two Powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right direction to the real ultimate God and the other in as wrong relation to Him.

Lewis goes still further in dissecting Dualism. Noting that "...in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is cruelty." [I have been maintaining that Amalek may be the exception that proves the rule]. He makes the point that the cruel get some benefit from being cruel, some "good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong" method, way or in excess.

At the end, Lewis describes supernaturally what we see in the natural world [a connection I make in the link above]. Just as we see natural and man-made parasitics accompany all work or potential for work in the well studied science of thermodynamics, Lewis said this about the bad force.

Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.... The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things -- resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work.

That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work. But it definitely worthy of our efforts here on FR and in the world at large, to consider it and all that it brings to mind.

If there is no transcendent God, then there is no possible reason for me to care one whit about anybody but myself...I am god. The death of anybody but me is irrelevent. The suffering of anybody but myself is not my affair. In fact, it would probably be good to get a whole bunch of folks out of the way, so there is more treasure for me to enjoy in this brief period before I too die and advance on into....nothing.

That's quite a leap in reasoning. I have a number of reasons for caring about persons other than myself. I have an inherent survival advantage if I choose to collaborate with others rather than running off and only concerning myself with my own interests. Trying create suffering for others could have negative consequences in those "others" banding together (under the common interest of alleviating suffering of themselves) and stopping me.

Then there's the matter of human empathy.

What you've described isn't atheism, it's sociopathy. I'd be more comfortable with someone without a belief in any gods than someone whom I knew was only restrained from torturing or killing me because of a belief in a diety who forbids it.

That's quite a leap in reasoning. I have a number of reasons for caring about persons other than myself. I have an inherent survival advantage if I choose to collaborate with others rather than running off and only concerning myself with my own interests. Trying create suffering for others could have negative consequences in those "others" banding together (under the common interest of alleviating suffering of themselves) and stopping me.

Ah, but every single example you have given me is from a purely selfish viewpoint...which proves my point.

Then there's the matter of human empathy.

If you are counting on human empathy when the chips are down, completely separate from faith in Christ, you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. What millions experienced in the Nazi death camps, and in the Soviet gulag, makes the case so very well that apart from Christianity, mankind; and individual men and women; quickly descend into barbarity and the grossest of selfish bestiality.

What you've described isn't atheism, it's sociopathy.

Atheism ends in sociopathy...always has, and always will.

I'd be more comfortable with someone without a belief in any gods than someone whom I knew was only restrained from torturing or killing me because of a belief in a diety who forbids it.

This statement shows that you lack a basic understanding of true Christianity. Christians don't 'love' because of laws that 'forbid' certain actions...they love because they have been changed on the inside, by the risen and living Christ. They are gifted with a new nature that is created in the image of God...who is love. (Don't willfully misunderstand me and think that I'm saying that Christians do this anything close to perfectly; they don't. They are still struggling with their old nature...God's work within them is far from complete while they remain on this earth.)

Read the New Testament book of Romans for a fuller and much more intelligent explanation of this than I am capable of delivering.

Okay, I'll put you in the "Don't Like It" column when it comes to religious freedom. You prefer a Christian Nation. As I said before, tough. The country was founded because of religious freedom.

Or maybe there is no inherent distinction between a "Christian Nation" and "Religious Freedom".

“It cannot be emphasized too often or too strongly that this nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is for this very reason that people of other faiths have been afforded prosperity, asylum, and freedom of worship.”

Remember the teaching of the (distinctly Messianic Christian) Pharisee Rabban, the Apostle Saint Paul of Tarsus:

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:7)
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8)
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Romans 13:9)
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10)

Now, what is the teaching comprised herein?

Render to your Rulers that which is their Rightful Due. (Ro. 13:7)
And what is your Rightful Due to any Man? The Law of Neighborly Love (Ro. 13:8)
And what is the Law of Neighborly Love? (Ro 13:9)
- To oppose Adultery
- To oppose Murder
- To oppose Theft
- To oppose Fraud
- To oppose the Coercion or Abuse of that which is your neighbor's
And if there is any other Law, it is comprised in this: you shall not commit Aggression against your neighbor (Ro. 13:10)

And this, therefore, is the entire sphere of that which you Owe to every Man in neighborly Love, including Rulers; and therefore represents the entire Sphere of that which is the State's to Enforce: To oppose Adultery, To oppose Murder, To oppose Theft, To oppose Fraud, and To oppose the Coercion or Abuse of that which belongs to another Man, and And if there is any other Law, it this -- you shall not commit Aggression against your neighbor.

I submit that a Nation founded upon such Pauline (that is to say, Christian) principles is better than any other Principles which may be offered; for even the Orthodox Jews (whom an unbiased Observer must regard as the most Intellectually-Consistent of the Judaic Religion) have no such provision for dividing the Ten Commandments between State and Church; their model (to which they are entirely consistent) is the Theocracy of Israel.

But Rav Sha'ul (Apostle Paul) offers Christian Jews and Gentiles a new Theonomy, the division of the Law between the duties of the Church (worship of God, hatred for Idolatry, honor of True Religion, respect for the Sabbath, obedience to Parents) and the duties of the State (punishment of Murder, punishment of Adultery, punishment of Theft, punishment of Fraud, punishment of Coercion and Abuse).

Thus a Christian Nation is, if constituted according to the Maxims of Christian Paul, a Free Republic in a way which no Judaic or Muslim or Pagan Nation can ever be:

only

To oppose Adultery
To oppose Murder
To oppose Theft
To oppose Fraud
To oppose the Coercion or Abuse of that which is your neighbor's
And if there is any other Law, it is comprised in this: you shall not commit Aggression against your neighbor.

And THAT'S IT. That is ALL that the State is Ordained to Do. Period. Nothing Else.

And now I submit that this creates a dilemma for both Lazamataz and F16Fighter:

LAZAMATAZ has to approach the fact that a "Christian Rabbi", Saint Paul, came up with a better idea of the State than any Orthodox Jew of which I am immediately aware. Where did these nutty Messianics get these great ideas? There is nothing that is Good, save that which is truly of God. What does he think of that??
and F16FIGHTER, meanwhile, has to approach the fact that a True Christian Republic, organized according to the Maxims of Saint Paul, is a good deal more "libertarian" than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell care to admit. What does he think of that??

Posted to tex-oma, A.J.Armitage, LSJohn for old times' sake; once upon a time, I used to post on the Political Forum

By the way... in ref: to my #172 -- I learned something new recently in reading David Chiltons The Days of Vengeance (an exposition of the Book of Revelation). Do you know what was one of the common inscriptions upon Roman Coins in the days of Caesar Octavian (Augustus), son of Julius Caesar?

Salvation is found in none other save AUGUSTUS, and no other name is given to men by which they can be saved.

These numismatic Inscriptions upon Roman Coinage pre-date the Ministry of Christ. They were known unto all subjects of the Roman Empire.

In other words, one of the most exclusive descriptions of Christ's Lordship, was not a piece of poetic phrasing which the Apostle Peter imagined on his own. The Apostle Peter deliberately and purposely claimed one of the greatest acclamations of Caesar's Lordship, and, for lack of a better word, deliberately urinated upon the claims of Mortal Man.

Against the threat of Roman Crucifixion, that impetuous fisherman Peter stood up against the Jewish Sanhedrin and their Roman patrons, and declared instead:

by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Understand what was going on here, people.

APOSTLE PETER DECLARED OPEN WAR UPON THE MESSIAH-STATE OF ROME.

True Christianity is human treason against the Claims of Man to his own Majesty and Divinity.

That is the very IDEA of our Religion.

So it has ever been.

So it shall ever be.

Everywhere this rulership is affirmed in the NT, in fact, the Lordship of Christ is the fundamental confession of the Christian faith. The Bible says, "If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." These ideas are intimately associated. His being raised from the dead and his lordship which is the end of the trail so to speak. He was raised, but he didn’t stop when he back to earth. He kept going until he was enthroned in heaven. And so the Christian confesses that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead and is the ruler of the nations. This was the issue that lead to the slaughter of Christians for 300 years in the Roman Empire, because they refused to pay homage to Caesar. And they were told to just burn a little incense. You don’t even have to mean it. They said that they would not even give the indication that there is anyone above Christ. We will be loyal citizens. We will do what the law says. But we will not pay homage to another lord. Jesus is Lord. And for that they were sawn in two. They were cut up, they were stabbed, they were brutally mistreated. They were tarred and burned and they were fed to the lions for the simple, little confession that Jesus is Lord. It is the backbone of the Christian confession. It is the beginning of the Christian life and it will come to a test every now in then in church history.

This is seen to be central in the preaching of Paul as he went to the synagogues. For example in the book of ACT 13 he preached this way at verse 32 "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers" and that means the gospel. We tell you the gospel. And again these ideas are associated in Paul’s book to the Romans. In chapter 1 he introduces his book this way. ROM 1:1ff "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God -- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God," Son of man, Son of God. Jesus Christ our Lord. The Son is the absolute sovereign ruler and possessor of all nations. By the expressed appointment of the Father who has entrusted all judgment to him. ~~ Jewish Christian Presbyter the rev. Steve Schlissel, "Messiah Rules the Nations"

THAT is "Mere Christianity".

If people would only understand, that is all we are talking about...

...and we are talking about nothing less.

Mere Christianity.

Thanks, F16Fighter, I *deeply* appreciate your affirmation of the declarations of Patrick Henry, which I affirm to be wholy correct, and reflective of the True Heritage of this Nation.

Christians should not be here to coerce Society, but to convert Society. Until we have made disciples of all Nations.

Perhaps if we re-focus ourselves upon Conversion and not Coercion, Mortal Man will understand that we are not here to control him, but rather to save him.
Or perhaps.... Mortal Man will slander us anyway. (shrugs) Big Deal.

Anyway, the True Christian seeks not coercion, but rather conversion.

COERCION belongs to those who look upon the outward appearance. But that does not save anyone.
CONVERSION, on the other hand... actually sticks. It actually means something. Something worthwhile and permanent and Real.

God Bless, OP

And from hence is the present open hostility towards the traditionally dominated "Christian" America from the ever rising neo-pagan movement and it's tools -- the NEA, TV and Barnes & Noble's New Age "teachers", and Secular Humanists. If the positions of cultural and political "dominance" were to be reversed, the days of Paul's Rome would return pronto for Christians AND all other Deistic religions as well.

No... "deistic religions" would be tolerated.

After all... as rev. Steve Schlissel relates:

This

And they were told to just burn a little incense. You don’t even have to mean it.

we will not pay homage to another lord. Jesus is Lord.

~~Schlissel

State Religion has always been willing to tolerate "Deistic Religion", after all... you only have to burn a little incense. You don't even have to mean it.
What is that to the Deist? No great thing. A minor ceremony, of little consequence to his far-off, mechanical "God".

But to the Christian, it means that we have to RADICALLY re-adjust our thinking.

As just two examples...

No more Social Security. (Messiah Jesus forbids Theft. Eighth Commandment.).
No more Public Education. (Messiah Jesus forbids surrendering our children to slavery. Fifth Commandment)

Have we been taking the EASY way out? Have we IMAGINED that we will make the Messiah-State "better" (what a LIE) by opposing the degeneracy and pornographism and evolutionism of Public Schools, when we ought NOT to subject our Covenant Children to these hell-prisons in the first place??

I wonder. I really do. Where is our focus??

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.