Incrementalism within politics.
|The Bible, Slavery, and America’s Founders|
|Stephen McDowell – 2003|
|America’s Founding Fathers are seen by some people today as unjust and hypocrites, for while they talked of liberty and equality, they at the same time were enslaving hundreds of thousands of Africans. Some allege that the Founders bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery. Consequently, many today have little respect for the Founders and turn their ear from listening to anything they may have to say. And, in their view, to speak of America as founded as a Christian nation is unthinkable (for how could a Christian nation tolerate slavery?).It is certainly true that during most of America’s history most blacks have not had the same opportunities and protections as whites. From the time of colonization until the Civil War most Africans in America (especially those living in the South) were enslaved, and the 100 years following emancipation were marked with segregation and racism. Only in the last 30 years has there been closer to equal opportunities, though we still need continued advancement in equality among the races and race relations. But is the charge against the Founders justified? Are they to bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery? Can we speak of America as founded as a Christian nation, while at it’s founding it allowed slavery?
Understanding the answer to these questions is important for the future of liberty in America and advancement of racial equality. The secular view of history taught in government schools today does not provide an adequate answer. We must view these important concerns from a Biblical and providential perspective.
America’s Founders were predominantly Christians and had a Biblical worldview. If that was so, some say, how could they allow slavery, for isn’t slavery sin? As the Bible reveals to man what is sin, we need to examine what it has to say about slavery.
The Bible and Slavery
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God’s original created order, and as God’s created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery – probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.
When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God’s original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God’s laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God’s redemptive desire, for men and nations.
Types of Slavery Permitted by the Bible
In the Sabbath year all Hebrew debtors/slaves were released from their debts.. This was not so for foreigners (Deut. 15:3). Theologian R.J. Rushdoony writes, “since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” 1 without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. However, there are Biblical laws concerning slaves that are given for their protection and eventual redemption. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. Under the new covenant, a way was made to set slaves free internally, which should then be following by external preparation enabling those who were slaves to live at liberty, being self-governed under God.
Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical
Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man’s freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.
Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 states:
This implied slaves must be treated justly, plus they had a degree of liberty. Other slave laws confirm this. In addition, such action was a fulfillment of the law of love in both the Old and New Testaments. The law of God declares: “. . . you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:17-18). Leviticus 19:33-34 clearly reveals that this applies to strangers and aliens as well: “The stranger, . . . you shall not do him wrong.. . . . you shall love him as yourself.”
It was forbidden to take the life or liberty of any other man. Rushdoony writes:
Rushdoony also says that the selling of slaves was forbidden. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel. The slave who was working out a restitution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would make him an incorrigible criminal and liable to death. 3
When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).
Laws related to slaves
Examination of the Biblical view of slavery enables us to more effectively address the assertion that slavery was America’s original sin. In light of the Scriptures we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin. But this brief look at the Biblical slave laws does reveal how fallen man’s example of slavery has violated God’s laws, and America’s form of slavery in particular violated various aspects of the law, as well as the general spirit of liberty instituted by Christ.
The Christian foundation and environment of America caused most people to seek to view life from a Biblical perspective. Concerning slavery, they would ask “Is it Biblical?” While most of the Founders saw it was God’s desire to eliminate the institution, others attempted to justify it. At the time of the Civil War some people justified Southern slavery by appealing to the Bible. However, through this brief review of the Old Testament slave laws we have seen that American slavery violated some of these laws, not to mention the spirit of liberty instituted by the coming of Christ.
Slavery and the New Testament
It is in this context that we can better understand the example of Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon who apparently stole some money from his master and ran away, encountered Paul in Rome and became a Christian. Paul sent him back to his master carrying the letter to Philemon. Author of the famous Bible Handbook, Henry Halley writes:
The Mosaic slave laws and the writings of Paul benefited and protected the slaves as best as possible in their situation. God’s desire for any who are enslaved is freedom (Luke 4:18; Gal. 5:1). Those who are set free in Christ then need to be prepared to walk in liberty. Pagan nations had a much different outlook toward slaves, believing slaves had no rights or privileges. Because of the restrictions and humane aspect of the Mosaic laws on slavery, it never existed on a large scale in Israel, and did not exhibit the cruelties seen in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria and other nations.
Sinful man will always live in some form of bondage and slavery, as a slave to the state, to a lord or noble, or to other men. As a step in man’s freedom, God’s laws of slavery provided the best situation for those who find themselves in bondage. God’s ultimate desire is that all walk in the liberty of the gospel both internally and externally.
As the gospel principles of liberty have spread throughout history in all the nations, man has put aside the institution of overt slavery. However, since sinful man tends to live in bondage, different forms of slavery have replaced the more obvious system of past centuries. The state has assumed the role of master for many, providing aid and assistance, and with it more and more control, to those unable to provide for themselves. The only solution to slavery is the liberty of the gospel.
Brief History of Slavery
Many of the early settlers came to America as indentured servants, indebted to others for a brief period of time to pay for their passage. England at this time recognized the forced labor of the apprentice, the hired servant, convicts, and indentured servants. Some of these laborers were subject to whippings and other forms of punishment. These forms of servitude were limited in duration and “transmitted no claim to the servant’s children.” 8
According to Hugh Thomas in The Slave Trade, about 11,328,000 Africans were transported to the new world between 1440 and 1870. Of these about 4 million went to Brazil, 2.5 million to Spanish colonies, 2 million to the British West Indies, 1.6 million to the French West Indies, and 500,000 went to what became the United States of America. 9
A Dutch ship, seeking to unload its human cargo, brought the first slaves to Virginia in 1619. Over the next century a small number of slaves were brought to America. In 1700 there were not more than 20 to 30 thousand black slaves in all the colonies. There were some people who spoke against slavery (e.g. the Quakers and Mennonites) 10 and some political efforts to check slavery (as in laws of Massachusetts and Rhode Island), but these had little large scale effect. The colonies’ laws recognized and protected slave property. Efforts were made to restrict the slave trade in several colonies, but the British government overruled such efforts and the trade went on down to the Revolution.
When independence was declared from England, the legal status of slavery was firmly established in the colonies, though there were plenty of voices speaking out against it, and with independence those voices would increase.
America’s Founders and Slavery
Some say we should not listen to the Founders of America because they owned slaves, or at least allowed slavery to exist in the society. However, if we were to cut ourselves off from the history of nations that had slavery in the past we would have to have nothing to do with any people because almost every society has had slavery, including African Americans, for many African societies sold slaves to the Europeans; and up to ten percent of blacks in America owned slaves.
The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.
John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:
The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13
There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:
When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared: “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21
Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king’s perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:
Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:
The Founders took action against slavery.
Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25
As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:
The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.
Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.
The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.
Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.
While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:
The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29
Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.
Slavery and the Constitution
Even so, many warned of the dangers of allowing this evil to continue. George Mason of Virginia told the delegates:
Jefferson had written some time before this:
Constitutional Convention Delegate, Luther Martin, stated:
Some today misinterpret the Constitutional provision of counting the slaves as three-fifths for purposes of representation as pro-slavery or black dehumanization. But it was a political compromise between the north and the south.. The three-fifths provision applied only to slaves and not free blacks, who voted and had the same rights as whites (and in some southern states this meant being able to own slaves). While the Southern states wanted to count the slaves in their population to determine the number of congressmen from their states, slavery opponents pushed to keep the Southern states from having more representatives, and hence more power in congress.
The Constitution did provide that runaway slaves would be returned to their owners (We saw previously that returning runaway slaves is contrary to Biblical slave laws, unless these slaves were making restitution for a crime.) but the words slave and slavery were carefully avoided. “Many of the framers did not want to blemish the Constitution with that shameful term.” The initial language of this clause was “legally held to service or labor,” but this was deleted when it was objected that legally seemed to favor “the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.” 34
While the Constitution did provide some protection for slavery, this document is not pro-slavery. It embraced the situation of all 13 states at that time, the Founders leaving most of the power to deal with this social evil in the hands of each state. Most saw that the principles of liberty contained in the Declaration could not support slavery and would eventually overthrow it.. As delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin put it:
We have seen that after independence the American Founders actually took steps to end slavery. Some could have done more, but as a whole they probably did more than any group of national leaders up until that time in history to deal with the evil of slavery. They took steps toward liberty for the enslaved and believed that the gradual march of liberty would continue, ultimately resulting in the complete death of slavery. The ideas they infused in the foundational civil documents upon which America was founded – such as Creator endowed rights and the equality of all men before the law – eventually prevailed and slavery was abolished. But not without great difficulty because the generations that followed failed to carry out the gradual abolition of slavery in America.
The View of Slavery Changes
The Civil War
States rights and perceived unconstitutional taxes were also motivations for secession. There were many abolitionists in the North, both Christian and non-Christian, who pushed for the war, seeing it as a means to end slavery. Though slavery was not initially the reason Lincoln sent troops into the South, he did come to believe that God wanted him to emancipate the slaves.
In all the complexities and tragedy of the war, God was at work fulfilling His providential purposes. Due to the sin of man, to his inability to deal with slavery in a Christian manner, and to other factors, a war erupted. Both good and bad in the root causes, produced good and bad fruit in the outcome of the war. 41
Though America’s Founders failed to accomplish all of their desires and wishes in dealing with the issue of slavery, the principles of equality and God-given rights they established in the American constitutional republic set into motion events leading to the end of slavery in the United States and throughout the world. That America was founded upon such Biblical principles is what made her a Christian nation, not that there was no sin in the Founders. It is because of the Christian foundations that America has become the most free, just, and prosperous nation in history. The Godly principles infused in her laws, institutions, and families have had immense impact in overthrowing tyranny, oppression, and slavery throughout the world.
For more information on this issue see The Founding Fathers and Slavery, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia, Black History Issue 2003, Confronting Civil War Revisionism, and Setting the Record Straight (Book, DVD, or CD).
Source of article: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120
I’m sick and tired of listening to liberal lemmings exclaim that President Obama is a Christian. I guess it’s not surprising. Many of them have deceived themselves into believing he’s a great president, too. He is neither. He is a devil in disguise. No president in our history has been more determined to eradicate Christianity from our society than Obama.
Article by David Barton – 12/20/2013
1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:
- June 2013 – The Obama Department of Justice defunds a Young Marines chapter in Louisiana because their oath mentioned God, and another youth program because it permits a voluntary student-led prayer. 
- February 2013 – The Obama Administration announces that the rights of religious conscience for individuals will not be protected under the Affordable Care Act. 
- January 2013 – Pastor Louie Giglio is pressured to remove himself from praying at the inauguration after it is discovered he once preached a sermon supporting the Biblical definition of marriage. 
- February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 
- January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 
- December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 
- November 2011 – President Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 
- November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 
- August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 
- April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 
- February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 
- January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 
- November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 
- October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 
- May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 
- April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 
- April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 
- February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 
- April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 
2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:
- December 2013 – A naval facility required that two nativity scenes — scenes depicting the event that caused Christmas to be declared a national federal holiday — be removed from the base dining hall and be confined to the base chapel, thus disallowing the open public acknowledgment of this national federal holiday. 
- December 2013 – An Air Force base that allowed various public displays ordered the removal of one simply because it contained religious content. 
- October 2013 – A counter-intelligence briefing at Fort Hood tells soldiers that evangelical Christians are a threat to Americans and that for a soldier to donate to such a group “was punishable under military regulations.” 
- October 2013 – Catholic priests hired to serve as military chaplains are prohibited from performing Mass services at base chapels during the government financial shutdown. When they offered to freely do Mass for soldiers, without regard to whether or not the chaplains were receiving pay, they are still denied permission to do so. 
- August 2013 – A Department of Defense military training manual teaches soldiers that people who talk about “individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place” are “extremists.” It also lists the Founding Fathers — those “colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule” — as examples of those involved in “extremist ideologies and movements.” 
- August 2013 – A Senior Master Sergeant was removed from his position and reassigned because he told his openly lesbian squadron commander that she should not punish a staff sergeant who expressed his views in favor of traditional marriage. 
- August 2013 – The military does not provide heterosexual couples specific paid leave to travel to a state just for the purpose of being married, but it did extend these benefits to homosexual couples who want to marry, thus giving them preferential treatment not available to heterosexuals. 
- August 2013 – The Air Force, in the midst of having launched a series of attacks against those expressing traditional religious or moral views, invited a drag queen group to perform at a base. 
- July 2013 – When an Air Force sergeant with years of military service questioned a same-sex marriage ceremony performed at the Air Force Academy’s chapel, he received a letter of reprimand telling him that if he disagreed, he needed to get out of the military. His current six-year reenlistment was then reduced to only one-year, with the notification that he “be prepared to retire at the end of this year.” 
- July 2013 – An Air Force chaplain who posted a website article on the importance of faith and the origin of the phrase “There are no atheists in foxholes” was officially ordered to remove his post because some were offended by the use of that famous World War II phrase. 
- June 2013 – The U. S. Air Force, in consultation with the Pentagon, removed an inspirational painting that for years has been hanging at Mountain Home Air Force Base because its title was “Blessed Are The Peacemakers” — a phrase from Matthew 5:9 in the Bible. 
- June 2013 – The Obama administration “strongly objects” to a Defense Authorization amendment to protect the constitutionally-guaranteed religious rights of soldiers and chaplains, claiming that it would have an “adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.” 
- June 2013 – At a joint base in New Jersey, a video was made, based on a Super Bowl commercial, to honor First Sergeants. It stated: “On the eighth day, God looked down on His creation and said, ‘I need someone who will take care of the Airmen.’ So God created a First Sergeant.” Because the video mentioned the word “God,” the Air Force required that it be taken down. 
- June 2013 – An Army Master Sergeant is reprimanded, threatened with judicial action, and given a bad efficiency report, being told he was “no longer a team player,” because he voiced his support of traditional marriage at his own promotion party. 
- May 2013 – The Pentagon announces that “Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable. “Proselytizing (inducing someone to convert to one’s faith) goes over that line,”  affirming if a sharing of faith makes someone feel uncomfortable that it could be a court-marital offense  — the military equivalent of a civil felony.
- May 2013 – An Air Force officer was actually made to remove a personal Bible from his own desk because it “might” appear that he was condoning the particular religion to which he belonged. 
- April 2013 – Officials briefing U.S. Army soldiers placed “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” in a list that also included Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas as examples of “religious extremism.” 
- April 2013 – The U.S. Army directs troops to scratch off and paint over tiny Scripture verse references that for decades had been forged into weapon scopes. 
- April 2013 – The Air Force creates a “religious tolerance” policy but consults only a militant atheist group to do so — a group whose leader has described military personnel who are religious as ‘spiritual rapists’ and ‘human monsters’  and who also says that soldiers who proselytize are guilty of treason and sedition and should be punished to hold back a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.” 
- January 2013 – President Obama announced his opposition to a provision in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act protecting the rights of conscience for military chaplains. 
- June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles. 
- May 2012 – The Obama administration opposed legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs. 
- April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them. 
- February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 
- February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 
- February 2012 – The Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 
- November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 
- November 2011 – President Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 
- November 2011 – Even while restricting and disapprobating Christian religious expressions, the Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans at the Air Force Academy. 
- September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 
- September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 
- August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except now, America). 
- June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 
- January 2010 – Because of “concerns” raised by the Department of Defense, tiny Bible verse references that had appeared for decades on scopes and gunsights were removed. 
3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:
- August 2013 – Non-profit charitable hospitals, especially faith-based ones, will face large fines or lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t comply with new strangling paperwork requirements related to giving free treatment to poor clients who do not have Obamacare insurance coverage.  Ironically, the first hospital in America was founded as a charitable institution in 1751 by Benjamin Franklin, and its logo was the Good Samaritan, with Luke 10:35 inscribed below him: “Take care of him, and I will repay thee,” being designed specifically to offer free medical care to the poor.  Benjamin Franklin’s hospital would likely be fined unless he placed more resources and funds into paperwork rather than helping the poor under the new faith-hostile policy of the Obama administration.
- August 2013 – USAID, a federal government agency, shut down a conference in South Korea the night before it was scheduled to take place because some of the presentations were not pro-abortion but instead presented information on abortion complications, including the problems of “preterm births, mental health issues, and maternal mortality” among women giving birth who had previous abortions. 
- June 2013 – The Obama Administration finalizes requirements that under the Obamacare insurance program, employers must make available abortion-causing drugs, regardless of the religious conscience objections of many employers and even despite the directive of several federal courts to protect the religious conscience of employers. 
- April 2013 – The United States Agency for Internal Development (USAID), an official foreign policy agency of the U.S. government, begins a program to train homosexual activists in various countries around the world to overturn traditional marriage and anti-sodomy laws, targeting first those countries with strong Catholic influences, including Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala. 
- December 2012 – Despite having campaigned to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, President Obama once again suspends the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 which requires the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the American Embassy there. 
- July 2012 – The Pentagon, for the first time, allows service members to wear their uniforms while marching in a parade – specifically, a gay pride parade in San Diego. 
- October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 
- September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 
- July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 
- March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 
- February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 
- September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 
- August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 
- July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 
- September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 
- July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 
- May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 
- March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 
- March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 
- March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 
- January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 
- January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 
4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:
- October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 
- August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 
- August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 
- April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 
- April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 
- May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 
- 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 
Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.
The following article was originally posted at: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3945628.html
Reprinted with permission.
Editor’s Note: Adam Ch’ng resides Melbourne, Australia. The political left is the same everywhere.
12 APRIL 2012
Having attended a Catholic high school, I quite reasonably assumed that my teachers were themselves, well, Catholic.
Similarly, it would be slightly inappropriate if the staffer employed by my local Liberal parliamentarian was a card-carrying member of the ALP.
It therefore strikes me as passing strange that there are calls to prohibit religious schools from being able to refuse employment to someone whose religion, sexual orientation or marital status is inconsistent with the school’s religious belief. In short, it is an attempt to restrict the right to discriminate.
As it stands, the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination against persons with an ‘attribute’ – such as sexual orientation, religious belief or disability – in the course of employment, education, and other activities.
However, there are approximately 44 exceptions to the rule. One such exception is found in section 83 which provides that religious schools may discriminate on the basis of a person’s religion, sexual orientation or marital status, where the discrimination:
“… conforms with their religious doctrines; or is reasonably necessary to avoid injury to the sensitivities of the religious adherents.”
Section 83, it is proposed, should be repealed.
Now let’s get something straight: ‘discrimination’ in itself is not a bad thing. If the hysteria perpetuated by the bleeding hearts is to be believed, mere mention of the word is morally offensive and should be legally sanctioned.
The reality is we all discriminate, every moment of every day. Whether we are deciding what health insurer to sign up with or what school to send our children to, we make choices favouring one party over another. Our legal system rightly discriminates against aspiring lawyers who are not ‘fit and proper’ persons and our armed forces appropriately discriminate against aspiring soldiers who fail to meet the physical fitness requirements.
So let’s not immediately assume that discrimination is the moral evil it’s made out to be. In fact, discrimination is indispensible to our ability to make moral choices between good and bad, right and wrong, and of course Liberal and Labor. It is our right to discriminate.
The question then is not whether religious schools should have the right to discriminate. Instead, it is whether that discrimination is unjustified. And insofar as it is justified, the law should protect and not restrict that right.
So is a religious school’s right to discriminate unjustified? Melissa Matheson certainly thinksso:
“If religious schools are willing to accept funding from the government, they should have to play by the rules like everyone else – and that includes equal opportunity.”
At first blush, this sounds perfectly reasonable. After all, if ‘everyone else’ can’t discriminate, why should religious schools get special treatment? All Matheson is proposing is that religious schools be brought into line with ‘everyone else’. But who exactly is ‘everyone else’? And do they all actually ‘play by the rules’?
As it happens, government-funded organisations of all stripes can discriminate on a whole range of matters. The act permits political parties to discriminate against prospective employees on the basis of their political belief or activity. Schools are allowed to discriminate against students through age-based admission schemes and quotas. And single-sex, age-specific and minority culture clubs can exclude from membership people who are not of the same sex, age or culture.
Each of these groups has a legitimate core philosophy that defines their very reason for existence. To adapt Justice Sachs’ words in Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education, the state should seek to avoid putting people to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or philosophy, or else respectful of the law.
The simple truth is, religious schools are already playing by the rules like ‘everyone else’. If the equal opportunity crusaders really want a level playing field, why don’t they lodge a complaint against the university womyn’s group for discriminating against men?
I suspect that the real issue at play has nothing to do with equal opportunity legislation, education policy or even discrimination law. If it did, surely the other exceptions under the act would be targeted for repeal and other non-Christian interest groups would be similarly attacked.
Instead, it seems to me that this has far more to do with a rather evangelical crusade against the Christian church. Matheson would do well to note that the right to discriminate she fervently preaches against is similarly enjoyed by Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, the very people she calls Christians to repent of excluding.
Whether it is same-sex marriage or equal opportunity, the knives are out for the Christian church.
Such calls to restrict our right to discriminate should send chills down all our spines. What appears to promote greater freedom and equality actually extends the reach of government regulation into our homes, churches and community groups.
We all have the right to discriminate but the equal opportunity crusaders will stop at nothing to set political correctness in statutory stone.
Adam Ch’ng is a graduate at a law firm in Melbourne where he principally practices employment and workplace relations law. The views expressed here are those solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his employer or any other organisation. View his full profile here.
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A new vehicle that travels 12,000 Miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline Consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that Is 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $90 per barrel costs About $450 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450 million. They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.
We’ve been assured, though, that they will do a much better Job with our health care.
[Original Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/05/school-bans-christmas-trees-
In an article by Todd Starnes (Todd’s American Dispatch Published December 05, 2013), he shares: “an “elementary school in Frisco, Texas is believed to be the first in the state to violate “The Merry Christmas Law” after they banned Christmas trees and the colors red & green from an upcoming “winter” party.colors-red-green/?intcmp=obnetwork]
Boys and girls who attend the Nichols Elementary School “Winter Party” will not be able to make any reference to Christmas or any other religious holiday. Christmas trees are also banned – along with the colors red and green.”
Once again, the left proves that liberalism is a mental disease. You may ask, “What is the compelling reason for this action? Here’s what the principal of the school had to say:
“…they didn’t want to offend any families and since each family donates money they feel this is the best policy.”
What about all the families who might be offended by not being able to call Christmas, Christmas?!!
Texas Rep. Pat Fallon, the author of a “Merry Christmas Law” that was signed into law in June that “codifies the fact that students and staff are permitted to discuss winter holidays as they please,” was shocked.
“Fallon fired off a letter to every school official in the district, reminding them of their yuletide rights under the law.
“Texas law clearly permits Christmas-themed celebrations, events and displays,” Fallon wrote. “The district may also display scenes or symbols with traditional winter holidays (e.g. nativity scenes, Christmas trees, menorahs, etc.)”
Clearly, this is another example of attacks against Christianity, and one more incremental step of stripping away our rights.
[Note: this article is a compilation from numerous sources. See Bibliography below]
Anytime I get into an discussion with people about the Second Amendment, they inevitably bring up the idea that the rights enshrined within the Bill of Rights have limits. And the one thing they constantly fall back on is the example that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
This argument is one that attempts to tie two completely different aspects together as if they are forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Here it is:
1. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
2. It can be infringed by disallowing a person to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
3. Therefore all rights (including gun ownership) can be infringed.
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.”
To that I say, “Yes, I can…if there’s a fire.”
I will concede the point that rights do have restrictions in a free society is valid , but not often in the context used by those who put forth the notion.
Timothy Havener, in a article, makes a cogent point: “The criteria of limitation is set by the encroachment of one right upon another. Stating you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre only remains valid if there is no fire because in doing so you are encroaching on the rights of others to enjoy their entertainment. Conversely, if there is a fire and you verbosely utter its presence you would be met with appreciation and thanks and would not have stepped across the line of encroachment.
Our natural rights within a civil society are compromised to some extent by default. We must accept some infringement on the natural state of our liberty where our rights may infringe on others. This is the basis for law and all reasonable restrictions on our rights. What we must never accept, however, are restrictions based on the faulty premise of safety and protection from what may occur. When we enter this territory we lay liberty upon a sacrificial altar and entomb justice in a grave of conceit.
The road to tyranny is often paved with the good intentions of well meaning people trying to protect us from ourselves when they should be more worried about protecting themselves from the rogue power of a government not bound by strict constitutional limitations.
No man’s freedom should be taken for the potential risk of what may happen or what might occur. If an act or a purported act in itself is not criminal by nature then there is no justification for a seizure upon the freedom of the individual.”
To put it another way, in regard to free speech, you enjoy your first amendment rights completely and totally unrestricted, and are presumed innocent until the moment you decide to open your mouth and form the words inciting mutiny or violence. Up to that point,
- There are no censors standing over your head making sure that you don’t write anything seditious.
- There is no waiting period while your background is checked before being allowed to speak.
- There is no requirement to register your newspaper or blog with the government.
- There is no government organization that keeps a list of approved publications and requires a $200 tax to move that instrument of speech between people.
- You are allowed the full exercise of their rights up until the exact moment when they decided to speak in a way that was imminently against the public interest.
[Less anyone reading this miss the point, the above is analogous to guns] There are restrictions on what you can say, but there is always the presumption of innocence. It’s only in reaction to an act or speech that those restrictions kick in.
We should have the same kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment. Just as with the First, you should have the full and complete enjoyment of your rights without any reservations or restrictions until you do something that proves your motives are against the public interest.
Because “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t just a phrase — it’s supposed to actually mean something in this country.
Invariably, the next step after using the “Can’t yell fire in a theatre” fallacy is “Oh then I guess you think everyone should have nuclear weapons then, huh?”
This is using the ‘strawman logical fallacy.”
(For anyone reading this that is unfamiliar with that term, the Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.)
I’m surprised you didn’t toss into the mix, along with atom bombs, chemical and biological weapons.
Why not tanks? Why not nukes?
“Have you seen the going price for plutonium these days?” 🙂
Seriously though, how many Americans have the funds to develop a tank, or purchase one? And would someone with the tens of millions of dollars required to purchase a tank actually use it unwisely? And if they did, the national guard would destroy it quite quickly. As for the nuclear weapon, a citizen would have to mine uranium, develop the technology, and then assemble it into a weapon to pose any threat. If several entire nations have tried unsuccessfully to develop a nuke, then what would lead a person to believe that a private individual would succeed? And even if one did, would not a private citizen who spent billions developing a nuke probably be more rational than the reckless, tyrannical leader of North Korea?
Let’s be real. No one in the current argument in the right to bear arms is talking about the right to bear tanks and nuclear weapons.
Article: The Second Amendment, the First and Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater
Written by Nick Leghorn on January 13, 2013 and appears on the website: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/the-second-amendment-the-first-amendment-and-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-auditorium/
Article: Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre
Written by Timothy Havener on April 20, 2011 and appears on the website: http://libertythinkers.com/creative-writing/yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre/
Sadly, though, for many the day has absolutely no meaning. It is as any other day. No different and certainly nothing worthy of attention. And to many, the mere mention of Easter brings contempt and loathing.
Throughout most of U.S. history, books such as the McGuffy reader, New England Primer (which taught spelling, reading and the Alphabet using Bible verses), and the Blue Book Speller (which also used Bible verses to teach reading and spelling) were used in everyday classrooms.
Most of our founding fathers were Christians. They believed that religious freedom was of primary importance and they didn’t want government interfering with the right to worship God. Their purpose in carefully constructing the laws governing the nation was motivated by their belief that “the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (Noah Webster)
The U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause “were adopted by the framers for the explicit purpose of promoting, not suppressing religious freedom.” George Washington firmly believed in the indispensability of Christian training for good government. “True religion,” he said, “affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible.”
Today, we see an outright assault by atheists and progressive liberals to eradicate any form of “religion” in government or public life. In reality, progressives really don’t care about attacking any other ‘religion’ than Christianity, and Jews by extension.
The first crack in the moral school system occurred, in 1925 when the newly formed ACLU paid a teacher in Tennessee to teach Evolution. Biblical creation had been taught throughout the land, and teaching evolution was against the Tennessee state law. While the ACLU lost the case, it set in motion a re-evaluation of teaching science. Within four decades the laws were reversed so that now teaching Creation is outlawed and teaching Evolution is mandatory.
The ACLU then started using the courts to change school policy. In 1948 the Supreme court used the “Separation of Church and State” argument to outlaw a time for school prayer. In 1962 the Supreme Court again declared that prayer in school was unconstitutional. In 1963 the Warren Court stopped schools from allowing Bible reading in classes. In 1980 the Supreme Court declared that posting the Ten Commandments in a school classroom violated the Constitution of the United States.
1A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says “Separation of Church and State.” This not only displays a profound sense of illiteracy, by willful ignorance. You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution! Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.
The First Amendment :
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.
So where did the words “Separation of Church and State.” come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase “Separation of Church and State.” When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson’s letter. . .
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Read the full text of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association ..
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the “wall”, to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Warren Court (liberal) re-interpreted the First Amendment, based on no precedent (in other words they decided on their own they didn’t like ‘religion,’ so through misuse of power, change the meaning), thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.
And yet, and it hasn’t stop the disdain from liberals who use this phrase as a club to limit, damage, or attempt to destroy, in particular, Christianity.
For example, the ACLU’s war against Christians praying in public schools while obliging Muslims the ability make their noon prayers in a school. Or Vanderbilt University’s discrimination against Christians—forbidding them from meeting on campus if they adhere to their religious principles.
Or how about comedian (I use the term comedian lightly) Kathy Griffen at an awards ceremony: “A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now!”
2 How about Barack Obama’s mocking comments about conservative Christians who” bitterly cling to guns and religion.”
How about Obama’s violation of the “free exercise clause” in the First Amendment by demanding that Catholic hospitals provide free birth control and abortion- inducing drugs, even though that clearly violates their religious beliefs.
Literally every Catholic bishop in America has spoken out against the policy, but of course, the Democratic Party is unmoved. This should shock no one who has seen the Left enthusiastically support government sponsored anti-Christian art, sue Christians who want to mention Christ in schools or courthouses, and even just fight to remove the World Trade Center Cross from the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.
Who isn’t aware when schools renamed ‘Easter break’ and ‘Christmas break’ to spring and fall break, lest someone might be offended. How about the recent news just within the last week of the writing of this article, boys and girls at an Alabama elementary school will still get to hunt for eggs – but they can’t call them ‘Easter Eggs.’ The principal banished the word for the sake of religious diversity. In many places you can’t even utter the devilish words, “Merry Christmas,” for fear of offending someone.
It only takes one person to claim that they are offended by anything (heck, sometimes they don’t even need a person), that remotely has ‘religion’ attached to it, that gives liberals the ammo and justification to rid society of it. They could care less that by their actions they offend millions of Christian. For merely expressing a biblical view, you can be labeled intolerant, or even prosecuted for a “hate crime.”
This website will provide ample evidence to these claims, but you get the idea.
So, what is it about Christianity and specifically, Jesus Christ, that offends liberals so much?
Why is that, by and large, we have raised a generation that knows nothing of the bible (the best selling book of all time), let alone the great contribution Christianity has made toward the betterment of human society, i.e., science, healthcare, music, architecture, literature, and even human freedom itself?
What Christians are experiencing in the world today is not so much a “war on Christianity” as it is rebellion against God, and thus a hatred toward anything that points to God or His Son Jesus… and by extension a hatred of Christ’s followers.
This rebellion is nothing new. Men break God’s commandments, e.g., do not steal, do not lie, do not take God’s name in vain, do not look on another with lust, etc. Man’s sinful nature is to hate authority. Being told you are a sinner, could cause guilt, and god forbid, make you be held responsible for your actions.
In everyday life, our actions are constrained by laws. Laws have penalties. If you speed, you get a ticket and pay a fine. If you murder, you get locked up for a long time or you’re executed. Our laws change and sometimes what was previously thought as wrong is now ok. (relativism).
God’s laws, however, do not change. As creator, what he declares is wrong, is always wrong (absolutes). When you break one God’s laws, you rebel against God himself. And like our court system today, you will be held responsible for your actions. You will be judged not according to man’s relative laws, but by God’s absolute law.
You don’t walk into a courtroom after breaking the law, and have the judge say, “Oh, that’s ok. I’m sure you didn’t mean it.” No, if the judge is fair and right, he will give you what’s due you and what you deserve. The bible says that the just wage due a sinner (one who breaks God’s law) is death (spiritual death).
So is God out to get everyone? Is he the great “‘cosmic killjoy?” Is he the one that is trying to ruin everybody’s “fun?”
No. According to the bible, “All have sinned.” All means everybody, and unless you’re lying to yourself, ‘all’ means you are included in that group. And because you break his laws, God (being a right and fair judge) gives you what you deserve. If that is all He did, he would be fair. But, because he loves us, he provided a way that you don’t get what you deserve. He sent his son, Jesus (whom we celebrate during Easter). He placed your sin, and the penalty due that sin, on Jesus. Jesus paid the debt you owed. And because of that, you can stand right before God, just as though you never sinned or broke his law to begin with.
To prove that God accepted his sacrifice on your behalf, Jesus rose from the dead. God gives the gift of salvation and forgiveness to anyone who accepts that sacrifice and turns from evil (what many refer to as repentance). Of course, being human, we blow it every day and break another or many of God’s laws. But, God wants to restore his relationship with you, so extends love, mercy and grace. You pick yourself up, confess your sin, and move forward.
Many do not want to be held accountable to God, so they rebel, deny his existence, lie, do evil, are prideful, and call good that which God calls evil (such as abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, etc.) , and evil that which God calls good. Thus, they desire to rid not only God in our culture, but people of faith whose morals and lives stand in stark contrast to their behavior and polluted mind.
To that end, liberals and progressives have been successful. They have co-opted our schools, our media, our culture, and sadly in many places, our churches.
As Christians who celebrate Easter, we should not be surprised. Jesus talked of this time. Keep this in mind: “Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you”. (1 John 3:13, NIV)
Or this: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:18-20, NIV).
Easter reminds us of Christ’s return. That is good and bad news: good for those who call upon His name and look forward to His return, but bad for those who, through their arrogance and pride, reject a God who has extended a gracious and merciful plan of salvation through His Son, Jesus.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in God or how you reject Him. Someday, you will be held accountable, judged, and receive what you deserve.
New International Version (NIV)
11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
Make a choice to turn from disobedience now before you no longer have the opportunity.