Religion

Incrementalsim within the church.

6. Tattoo: The Mark of Rebellion

Terry Watkins
the Truth Ministries

[Article reprinted with permission]


 

TATTOO: THE MARK OF REBELLION

The Bible, from cover to cover, and over and over, condemns rebellion. The Lord God considered rebellion so serious – He compared rebellion to witchcraft. And may I remind you, witchcraft was punishable by death!

“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, . . . ”
1 Samuel 15:23

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Exodus 22:18

And if there’s one message the tattoo cries out – loud and clear – it’s rebellion.

Throughout history tattoos have symbolized rebellion. There’s nothing normal about a tattoo. A tattoo screams of unabashed rebellion and deviancy.

Every tattoo book, and every article, I researched, both old and new, openly affirmed the deliberate rebellion symbolized by the tattoo. Book after book, article after article, sung the same song – tattoos are open rebellion. It’s worth noting – all the following quotes are from pro tattoo books.

“Since body art is still not mainstream, having marks on your body that you put there on purpose shows the world your rebellious and unconventional nature”.
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p. 32)

“In this culture, a tattooed person is still looked at as a rebel, as someone who has very visibly stepped out of the bounds of normal society, . . .”
(Michelle Delio, Tattoo: The Exotic Art of Skin Decoration, p. 75)

“Unquestionably tattoos are socially unacceptable.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 179)

TATTOO: A MARK OF DISGRACE OR REPROACH

Steve Gilbert, in the very popular, pro-tattoo book, Tattoo History: A Source Book, documents that even the word “tattoo” means “. . . a mark of disgrace or reproach”.

“The Latin word for ‘tattoo’ was stigma and the original meaning is reflected in modern dictionaries. Among the definitions of ‘stigma’ listed by Webster are a ‘prick with a pointed instrument,’ . . .’ a distinguishing mark cut into the flesh of a slave or a criminal,’ and ‘a mark of disgrace or reproach.”
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 15)

In fact, for most of it’s slimy history the tattoo was used to mark the criminal, adulterers, traitors, deserters, the deviant and outcast. The tattoo was a dreaded mark of reproach and disgrace.

“Adultery, also, was punished in this way [tattooed] in some parts of Britain, and ‘bad characters’ were marked BC. . . In 1717, branding was abolished in the Army and replaced with tattooing. .. with the letter ‘D’ deserter’”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 162)

TATTOO: THE MARK OF THE ‘SIDESHOW FREAK’

As late as the early 1900’s, the tattoo was so far “out of bounds” of normal, civilized society, the tattooed was mainly found freaking people out as an attraction in the circus “freak show”.

“By 1897 tattooing had reached the United States, where it immediately became a circus sideshow attraction.”
(Laura Reybold, Everything you need to know about the dangers of tattooing and body percing, p. 17)

“The popularity of tattooing during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century owed much to the circus.”
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 135)

TATTOO: THE MARK OF INDECENCY

Tattoos are so rebellious and disgusting to most people – they compare a tattoo to filthy pornography – “dirty, indecent and subversive to morality”.

“In a society that considers nudity as dirty, indecent, and subversive or morality . . .— it is not surprising that decorations to the body are allocated to the same category.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 179)

Even in the barbaric and immoral ancient Greek and Rome, the tattoo was considered “barbaric” and used primarily to mark slaves and criminals. It’s interesting, they promoted slavery and other forms of depravity – but felt tattoos were barbaric. What does that testify of today’s barbaric Christian tattooing craze? Is the next step in Christian depravity – slavery?

“Respectable Greeks and Romans did not indulge in decorative tattooing, which they associated with barbarians. The Greeks, however, learned the technique from the Persians, and used it to mark slaves and criminals so they could be identified if they tried to escape.”
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 15)

TATTOO: THE MARK OF DEPRAVITY

Criminals, drug addicts, sex perverts and social outlaws are the overwhelming majority of the tattooed. Statistics, both old and recent, clearly reveal tattoos are largely worn by the rebellious and deviant.

In addition to being a form of self-destruction, the tattoo seals the wearer off from the rest of normal society forever. It’s not all that surprising to note that the largest number of tattooed in Japan belong to the underworld, and in America tattoos are most prevalent either in jail or hard rock bands.”
(Danny Sugerman, Appetite for Destruction: the Days of Guns N’ Roses, p. 40)

“It was ancient Japanese tradition to tattoo convicted criminals. . . ”
(Laura Reybold, Everything you need to know about the dangers of tattooing and body percing, p. 15)

“A study of young offenders on the West Coast of America concluded that delinquents tattoo themselves significantly more often than non-delinquents, and that the inclination develops at an early age without any thought for the future.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 113)

“In the Borstal institutions [criminals] it has been estimated that the incidence of tattooing can be as high as 75 per cent.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 113)

Comprehensive studies performed in Denmark, revealed the following enlightening statistics concerning tattoos:

  • 42% of homes for short-term detentioned were tattooed
  • 60% of homes for young men with behavior difficulties
  • 72% of prisons for young men
  • 52% of prisons population
    (Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 114)”The same Denmark studies also disclosed less than 4.8 in the general population were tattooed.”
    (Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 114)

Investigations by law enforcement officials also came to the conclusion that:

“the presence of ornamental body tattoos could serve to indicate the existence of personality disorders which are liable to manifest themselves in criminal behaviour“.
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 117)

“Therefore, many authorities link tattooing with aggression, i.e. anti-authoritarianism, and it cannot be disputed that gangs and delinquents, juvenile or otherwise, display massive evidence of aggression“.
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 114)

According to study after study, a tattoo so personifies and establishes a “rebellious atmosphere” that one of the most important steps in prison rehabilitation is the removal of the tattoo. According to many serious studies, a tattoo is linked so strong to criminal behavior and delinquency, that without question, the mere decoration of the tattoo inherently contributes to the criminal behavior pattern.

This [tattoos] is one of the problems behind prison rehabilitation. Hence the reason why some plastic surgeons associated with prison service are prepared to spend an enormous amount of time removing tattoos, especially those on exposed areas. . .”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 181)

The famous architect, Adolf Loos, who also studied the connection to tattoos and crime, blatantly wrote:

“Tattooed men who are not behind bars are either latent criminals or degenerate aristocrats. If someone who is tattooed dies in freedom, then he does so a few years before he would have committed murder“.
(Adolf Loos, 1962 Ornament und Verbrechen. Samtliche Schriften, edited by F. Gluck. Vienna: Herold, 1962, cited at www.into-you.co.uk/contents/misc.htm)

TATTOO: THE MARK OF PERVERSION

Studies have linked tattoos to homosexuality, lesbianism, and gross sexual perversion.

“To be fair to those who maintain that tattooing is linked to homosexuality, investigations conducted in a New Zealand Borstal for girls revealed that of the 60 per cent tattooed, 90 per cent admitted to lesbian behaviour during corrective treatment. . .
Yet further analysis indicated a ratio of aggression to the number of tattoos, and that the most heavily tattooed girls were unstable and insecure and tended to take the masculine role in their sex encounters.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 87)

“[associated with tattoos] Among these conditions Raspa cited: impulsiveness, low self esteem, lack of self control, homosexual orientation, sexual sadomasochism, bondage, fetishism, bisexuality, lesbianism, antisocial personality, borderline personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, mania and bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.”
(Raspa, Robert F. and John Cusack 1990, Psychiatric Implications of Tattoos, American Family Physician. 41: p. 1481 cited in Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 159)

TATTOO: AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS

Studies also show that “self-inflicted” tattoos are frequently associated with people with personality disorders, troubled backgrounds and self-mutilation tendencies.

“Evidence indicates that it is the mere presence of the tattoo, not its artistic content, that correlates with certain diagnoses. Thus, any tattoo can be viewed as a warning sign that should alert the practicing physician to look for underlying psychiatric conditions.
(Raspa, Robert F. and John Cusack 1990, Psychiatric Implications of Tattoos, American Family Physician. 41: p. 1483)

“. . . studies suggests that people with personality disorders frequently have multiple small tattoos. . .”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 115)

Research clearly indicates “. . . the presence of tattooing was often indicative of a deprived and troubled background,. . .”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 117)

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TATTOOS OF TODAY?

I know what some are thinking. . . Sure, in the past tattoos were linked to criminals, depravity, and immoral behavior – but not today.

Today, the tattoo is worn by celebrities, athletes, politicians and business people. It’s adorned in high fashion mags and sports mags. There’s absolutely no data to even remotely suggest tattoos are linked to criminal or immoral behavior. No sir. Today’s tattoo is high-fashion and cool.

Oh. . . Really?

A very comprehensive study and analysis of tattoos, was recently published in April, 2001. The study was performed by Dr. Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician at the University of Rochester Children’s Hospital. The detailed analysis was taken from a study of 6072 young people, ages 11 to 21. From all over the United States. From all different ethnic groups. From all economic and social backgrounds. In other words, very thorough and reliable data models were constructed for the study. In fact, this study is probably the most comprehensive and conclusive analysis of tattoos ever conducted.

According to the study, today’s tattooed young people:

  • Are nearly four times more likely to engage in sexual intercourse
  • Over two times more likely to experience alcohol related problems
  • Nearly two times more likely to use illegal drugs
  • Over two times more likely to express violent behavior
  • Over two times more likely to drop out of high school

Dr. Roberts writes, that the results of the study reveal:

“Tattooing in adolescents was significantly associated with sexual intercourse, substance use, violence and school problems in bivariate analyses and in logistic regressions adjusting for sociodemographic factors and peer substance use.”
(Timothy A. Roberts, M.D. and Sheryl A. Ryan, M.D., Tattooing and High-Risk Behavior in Adolescents, Division of Adolescent Medicine, Strong Children’s Research Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY)

Dr. Roberts, writes in the “conclusion” of the study that tattoos “have strong associations with high-risk behaviors in adolescents”

“Conclusion: Permanent tattoos have strong associations with high-risk behaviors in adolescents. The presence of a tattoo during examination of an adolescent should prompt in-depth assessment for high-risk behaviors.”
(Timothy A. Roberts, M.D. and Sheryl A. Ryan, M.D., Tattooing and High-Risk Behavior in Adolescents, Division of Adolescent Medicine, Strong Children’s Research Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY)

It is worth mentioning, Dr. Roberts, himself has a tattoo. And before the study, Dr. Roberts admittedly believed that people with tattoos were unfairly stereotyped. One of his purposes of the study was to prove that point. After the overwhelming results, Dr Roberts, admitted, “I was more than a little surprised at the result.”

After evaluating the data, Dr. Roberts says, “A tattoo is a sign that doctors, parents, teachers ought to be asking about the teenager’s behaviour.”

BUT WASN’T JESUS A REBEL?

I hear this “rebel-party-line” from Christians:

“Hey dude, yea man, I’m a rebel just like Jesus. Yea, man, He was the real rebel. He rebelled against the system, man. Yea, man, He’s the ultimate rebel. Man, like, that’s why I wear my tattoos – I’m rebelling against the system.”

Heavily tattooed, Sonny of the “Rastafarianism-Christianity-AND-God-Knows-What-Else” punk-rap-metal rock band P.O.D. claims Jesus Christ was the first rebel — and the “first punk rocker”!

“We believe that Jesus was the first rebel. He was the first punk rocker going against all the rest of it”
Sonny, P.O.D.
(http://www.shoutweb.com/interviews/pod0700.phtml)

Let’s get something straight! The Lord Jesus Christ was NOT A REBEL! The Bible is very clear. The Lord Jesus Christ was OBEDIENT unto death – even the death of the cross!

Phil. 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Even in the Garden of Gethsemane, knowing that every wicked, abominable sin committed in history was going to be placed upon Him (2 Cor. 5:17), knowing that He was going to drink the cup of wrath of God, and in great agony, His sinless sweat was dropping as it were great drops of blood — even then, Thank God, Thank God — HE DID NOT REBEL! As He prayed “. . .not my will, but thine, be done.”

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Luke 22:42-44

Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ was ‘against’ the world and the system – but it was because the world was the REBEL – not the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank God – He was OBEDIENT to the will of God. The world, the flesh and the devil REBELLED and is REBELLING against the Word of God. Just like anyone that disgraces themselves with a “God-forbidden” tattoo.

Oh my friend, aren’t you glad that Jesus Christ was NOT a rebel. That He was OBEDIENT unto His Father’s will. Aren’t you glad that Sonny of P.O.D. is so wrong. If Jesus Christ REBELLED, one second, one thought, one sin, there would be no hope. Aren’t you glad Jesus Christ loved you so much that He died for you on Calvary?

Have you ever received the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour?

 

NOTE: It is strongly recommended to carefully read all the different sections, in order, as each section compliments the previous.

7. Tattoos Deadly Little Secret

Terry Watkins
the Truth Ministries

[Article reprinted with permission]


 

TATTOO’S DEADLY LITTLE SECRET

That harmless little “innocent” tattoo may have a little secret hiding inside.

A very deadly little secret. . .

Underneath that harmless tattoo is a very serious risk of acquiring a deadly blood-borne disease such as AIDS, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, tetanus, syphilis, tuberculosis and other blood-born diseases.

FACT:
Michael Machetti, a California tattooed biker seeking to have a very-vulgar neck tattoo re-tattooed-covered up with the number “666” has filed legal action against Bull’s Eye Tattoo Studio for infecting him with a “flesh-eating virus” during the tattoo procedure. Machetti claims the tattooist utilized unsanitary equipment that consequently infected him with the virus. Machetti has required several serious medical operations on his neck and both arms to remove huge portions of eaten skin. According to Ron Bakal, Machetti’s lawyer, his client’s medical bills are currently over $580,000.
(Case RIC391550, Michael Machetti v. Bull’s Eye Tattoo Studio, Sam Enriquez, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, file date April 11, 2003)

An alarming research study recently published by Dr. Bob Haley and Dr. Paul Fischer at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas uncovered that the “innocent” commercial tattoo may be the number one distributor of hepatitis C. The study was published in the journal Medicine (Haley RW, Fischer RP, Commercial tattooing as a potentially source of hepatitis C infectionMedicine, March 2000;80:134-151). Dr. Haley, a preventative medicine specialist and a former Center for Disease Control (CDC) infection control official, is exceptionally knowledgeable to prepare the study.

Dr. Haley concludes, “We found that commercially acquired tattoos accounted for more than twice as many hepatitis C infections as injection-drug use. This means it may have been the largest single contributor to the nationwide epidemic of this form of hepatitis.”

Incredible. According to Dr. Haley’s research you are twice as likely to be infected with hepatitis C from getting a tattoo from a tattoo shop than shooting up dope! With over 20 million Americans wearing a tattoo – and growing by leaps and bounds – we are likely staring down the barrel of a mammoth deadly epidemic.

The study also found that people who get tattooed in a commercial tattoo parlor were nine times more likely to get hepatitis C! That’s nine times more likely to be infected by a deadly, fatal disease. And Dr. Haley is not referring to “backyard-prison-tattoos” but a tattoo from a “sanitized” commercial tattoo shop.

Did you know the deadly disease hepatitis C kills over 10,000 people a year? And sky-rocketing. . . Currently 4 million Americans are chronically infected with hepatitis C and rising. . . And according to Dr. Haley, it’s number one channel — the deadly tattoo. . . Courtesy of your friendly commercial tattoo parlor.

There is the documentated case of a 22-year-old grocery store employee who simply received his $45 tattoo. And four weeks later – needed a liver transplant! (Mryna L. Armstrong and Lynne Kelly, Tattooing, Body Piercing, and Branding Are on the Rise, The Journal of School Nursing, Feb. 2001, Vol 17 No. 1, p.15)

When you consider hepatitis B can be transmitted with as little as 0.00004 ml of blood, and can live on blood contaminated surfaces, such as needles, tattoo machines, tables, etc. for over two months, the risk of hepatitis is very real indeed.

 

 

IMPORTANT: It’s strongly advised for people who have tattoos to get a Hepatitis check. And soon. . . Hepatitis can lie unnoticed for many years while doing serious damage. The sooner hepatitis is detected the better the chances for survival. If you have a tattoo – get checked.

WebMD warns of the “Russian Roulette” tattoo procedure — as each stick of the tattoo needle opens you up to contracting a deadly disease:

“Hepatitis C is spread by infected blood and infected needles, which is the virus’ connection with tattooing. Tattoos involve lots of needles making lots of sticks in the skin. Each stick carries potential for contamination — and not just with hepatitis, but also HIV, . . .”
(Pamela Anderson Says She Has Hepatitis C, WebMD Medical News, March 21, 2002, content.health.msn.com/content/article/1678.50634)

Still want a tattoo?

Ask actress Pamela Anderson about the harmless tattoo. Pamela contracted the deadly hepatitis C from a simple, small finger “TOMMY” tattoo.

The fact of tattoos spreading deadly diseases is nothing new. It’s been known and documented for years.

According to the Hepatitis Control Report, Spring 2001, “Outside the United States, several studies have connected the practice [tattoos] to hepatitis B and C virus transmission. . .”

“Tattooing poses health risks because the process exposes blood and body fluids. Because of this a person who gets tattooed risks getting a disease or infection that is carried through blood. These blood-borne diseases include hepatitis B and C, tetanus, and HIV.”
(Bonnie B. Graves, Tattooing and body piercing, p. 40)

“By the middle of the nineteenth century, it was becoming more and more apparent that the practice was not without its medical hazards. For instance, in 1853 the first case was reported of syphilis, transmitted not in the old fashioned way, but via the tattooist’s needle.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 133)

“In the late 1950’s, a New York City boy contracted blood poisoning from being tattooed with an unsterilized needle.”
(Laura Reybold, Everything you need to know about the dangers of tattooing and body piercing, p. 17)

In 1961 an outbreak of hepatitis B in New York City was linked to the tattoo. And the “ultra-liberal” New York City outlawed the deadly tattoo from 1961 until 1997!

Did you know the American Red Cross prohibits donors from donating blood for 12 months – one complete year — after getting tattooed? Their Blood Donation Eligibility Guidelines under “Tattoo” reads, “Wait 12 months after a tattoo. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis.”

Get this. . . According to research published in the Journal of School Health, 70 percent of 642 adolescents surveyed in a study reported hemorrhaging while being tattooed. (Donald Staffo , The Tuscaloosa Times, January 10, 2001)

Despite the attempt of many tattoo websites to nullify the possibility of contracting HIV / AIDS from a tattoo, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) gives a different answer:

“Can I get HIV from getting a tattoo or through body piercing?
A risk of HIV transmission does exist if instruments contaminated with blood are either not sterilized or disinfected or are used inappropriately between clients. CDC recommends that instruments that are intended to penetrate the skin be used once, then disposed of or thoroughly cleaned and sterilized.”
(www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq27.htm)

Why are tattoos so vulnerable to deadly diseases?

Simple. Because the tattooist is puncturing thousands of tiny potential disease bearing wounds with very little, if any, serious state or federal health regulations. And not only that, many of the customers receiving a tattoo are drug-users, criminals, rock artists, deviants and homosexuals who just happen to be the major carriers of the deadly blood-borne diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis.

And there exists no or very little federal or state laws enforcing any serious sterilization regulations. It is basically up to the tattoo shop owner to sterilize or not sterilize his tattooing tools and procedures.

“Where tattooing is legal, however there is little or no government regulation of tattoo artists. . . Since there is little regulation of tattoo artists, however, it is important to recognize that, as in any field, there may be unscrupulous or incompetent practitioners. Tattooing opens your body to potential infection, disease, and scarring.”
(Laura Reybold, Everything you need to know about the dangers of tattooing and body piercing, p. 18)

On their web site, the world-renown, Mayo Clinic sounds a warning about the dangers of the commercial tattoo shop and lack of serious health regulations:

“Keep in mind that tattoo parlors and piercing venues are not held to the same sterility standards as doctors’ offices and hospitals. Few states have hygienic regulations to ensure safe tattooing practices in commercial tattoo parlors, and even fewer monitor and enforce standards.”
(Body piercing and tattoos: More than skin deep, Mayo Clinic, www.mayoclinic.com)

WebMD also acknowledges the lack of sterile regulations missing in most tattoo shops:

By and large, tattoo artists and shops are not required — by state or local governments — to follow the same sterile operating practices as other operations that use needles, like hospitals and doctor’s offices.”
(Pamela Anderson Says She Has Hepatitis C, WebMD Medical News, March 21, 2002, content.health.msn.com/content/article/1678.50634)

Dennis Dwyer, executive director of the tattoo’s industry voluntary-self-monitoring organization Alliance for Professional Tattoo Artists (APT) readily admits the problem, “Many people are trying their best to provide safe tattooing. But this industry has a lot of nonconformists,”
(Pamela Anderson Says She Has Hepatitis C, WebMD Medical News, March 21, 2002, content.health.msn.com/content/article/1678.50634)

Tattoo industry expert Professor Myrna Alexander of Texas Tech University, who has researched the tattoo industry for 10 years, warns, “There are some very reputable tattoo artists out there. They work hard, and their studios are as clean as medical clinics. They do a good job because they believe what they are doing is art. The problem is, there are many who don’t.”
(Pamela Anderson Says She Has Hepatitis C, WebMD Medical News, March 21, 2002, content.health.msn.com/content/article/1678.50634)

Most tattoo shops do not and will not advise you to the real potential for serious health dangers. Despite the vast amount of research available (just search the Internet) many tattooist still refuse to acknowledge the very serious health dangers the tattoo invites.

Other Little Dangers

Besides the possibility of killing you with fatal diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis, the “harmless” tattoo provides an arm-load of other ailments.

Tattoos can cause chronic skin disorders such as sarcoid, keloid scarring, allergic dermatitis, photosensitivity reactions, psoriasis, and benign or malignant tumors. (www.saintmarys.edu/~health/dyk0010.html) Many people experience infection and allergic reaction to the tattoo ink.

Also, the pigments in tattoo ink contain small metal fibers such as iron oxide. These metal fibers can cause intense burning pain during an MRI procedure. Some medical institutions refuse to perform MRIs on people with tattoos. The MRI is an important medical procedure and this risk should not be taken lightly. (www.ezpermanentmakeup.com/IronOxideLetters.htm) And every prick is an invitation for blood-bourne diseases such as hepatitis and AIDS.

Think before you get that tattoo. . .

A tattooing machine can puncture the skin 3,000 times a minute. And every one of those thousands of punctures creates a hole 1/64 to 1/16th of an inch into the dermis that literally invites infection and disease. Every single puncture of the tattoo needle opens up the real possibility of AIDS, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, tetanus, tuberculosis and about any other blood-borne disease. With the average tattoo taking about 60 minutes that equals 180,000 tiny “Russian Roulette” puncture wounds providing a potential path to a very deadly infectious disease.

 

Beware!
Your tattoo could have inserted more
than harmless ink in your exposed flesh.
 

My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.
6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.
I am feeble and sore broken: I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart.
Psalm 38:5-8

 

NOTE: It is strongly recommended to carefully read all the different sections, in order, as each section compliments the previous.

8. Tattoos and the Bible

Terry Watkins
the Truth Ministries

[Article reprinted with permission]


 

WHAT ABOUT LEVITICUS 19:28?

Leviticus 19:28 is the Christian (or so-called Christian?) tattooist and tattoo-bearer’s worst nightmare. The Lord plainly, clearly, strongly, and without a doubt – condemns the tattoo.

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28

Could that be any more clear?

Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . .”

Simple. . . Straightforward. . .Settled. . .

God Said It. . . I Believe It. . . That Settles It. . .

Right. . .?

Not hardly. . .

The clear statement from the word of God does not settle anything for this generation of disobedient, carnal, worldy, tolerant, non-judgmental, Christians. Rather than obey God, they run miles and miles and miles to “justify” their open disobedience to the Word of God.

How do they get around Leviticus 19:28?

Clearly, there it is. “Ye shall not. . .print any marks upon you. . .”

A lot of Christians when confronted with Leviticus 19:28, scream, “Hey dude, that’s not for today. Man, that’s the Old Testament. I’m under the New Testament”.

Did you know that “bestiality” (sicko, perverted, sex with an animal) was ONLY forbidden in the Old Testament Levitical Law? Only in Leviticus 18:23 and Leviticus 20:15-16. Dude, only in the Old Testament Law. Does that mean a Holy God NOW – under the New Testament, approves of bestiality?

By the way, have you ever read Leviticus 19:29? The verse immediately AFTER the “it’s not for me” Leviticus 19:28?

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Leviticus 19:29

This is the only place in the Bible that God directly forbids someone to prostitute their daughter. And since, it’s ONLY in the Old Testament Levitical Law (and “hey, dude, we’re NOT under the law”) – it MUST be ok by the Lord for a parent to cause their daughter to prostitute.

Same sick, perverted, wicked, line of reasoning as the “it’s ONLY in the Old Testament-tattoo-bearer-wearer”. Same reasoning. . . Same disobedience. . . Same perversion of the Word of God.

There are many other “moral laws’ that are ONLY forbidden in the Old Testament, such as the human sacrifice of children. No where in the New Testament is this forbidden. Does that mean that NOW under the New Testament, God Almighty endorses throwing babies into the fire as a human sacrifice?

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 18:21

Matthew Henry’s Commentary at the beginning of Leviticus 19 explains that most of Leviticus 19 (such as verse 19:28) are moral commandments that applies not only for Israel but for the New Testament Christian today.

“Some ceremonial precepts there are in this chapter, but most of them are moral. . . Most of these precepts are binding on us, for they are expositions of most of the ten commandments.”
(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:28)

IT’S ONLY “FOR THE DEAD”

But by far the Christian tattooers favorite excuse for disobeying Leviticus 19:28 is the “that means nor print any marks upon you – for the DEAD“. It’s ok, as long it’s not for the dead“. See the “for the dead!!! . .for the dead!!!!”.

Is it ok to practice satanic bloodletting, self mutilation or cutting of the flesh as long as it’s not for the dead? It’s in the same verse. . . Hmmm. . .?

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28

Notice also, the phrase “for the dead” is ONLY referencing the “cuttings in your flesh”. The condemnation of “nor print ANY marks upon you” is not qualified by the phrase “for the dead”. Also, if you’ll notice the verse clearly says “ANY marks” period.

Merrill F. Unger’s, very popular and authoritative, Unger’s Bible Dictionary under the definition for “Mark” includes the following reference for Leviticus 19:28:

“In Lev. 19:28 we find two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body: ‘Ye shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, nor any print any marks upon you.’ The latter (Heb. qa aqaincision) refers to tattooing, and has no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelietes a proper reverence for God’s creation.”
(Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1974 ed., p. 696)

Notice that Unger teaches that tattoos were forbidden without any reference to pagan, heathen, or idolatrous usages. In other words, the tattoo itself, regardless the reason, was forbidden. Amen. Brother Unger.

Wycliffe’s Bible Encyclopedia under the definition for TATTOOING distinctly says:

“While ‘cuttings in the flesh’ have reference here to mourning customs [for the dead], the tattooing does not appear to pertain to such practice.”
(Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., p. 1664)

The New American Commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes the condemnation was for, “cutting the body either for the dead or with tattoo marks.” (Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary on Leviticus, 2000 ed., p. 262) Explicitly recognizing the tattoo was not “for the dead.”

Do you see how dishonest and disobedient this “it doesn’t apply to my New-Testament-Christian-marked-for-Jesus-tattoo” is? Find what you don’t like in the Word of God, cut it out (doesn’t apply to New Testament Christians) or misapply (it’s just for the DEAD, when it’s clearly NOT). Same tactics used by the satanic cults and heretics for years. You can prove anything and everything with such deceitful methods.

THE “FORBIDDEN” HAIRCUT

One of the silliest and childish arguments to justify the Christian tattoo is the: “Hey man, do you get a haircut or trim your beard? God condemned getting a haircut or trimming your beard in the verse before forbidding the tattoo. Dude, the tattoo is the same as getting a haircut.”

Believe it or not . . . this is a widely used argument.

Leviticus 19:26-28 is a clear condemnation of pagan, witchcraft and heathen practices. Look at the context. Verse 26 is plainly referring to “enchantment [spells or witchcraft] nor observe times [astrology]. . . Verse 28 is the pagan, demonic practice of bloodletting [cuttings in your flesh] and tattooing. Why would the Lord stick in the middle a verse that “condemns simply getting a haircut”? Of course, He wouldn’t. . . And He didn’t. . .

Leviticus 19:26-28 reads:
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

The condemnation found in verse 27 of “rounding the corners of your head” or “mar the corners of thy beard” was the forbidding of a common pagan practice that cut the hair as worship and honor of the hosts of heaven.

Here’s how Matthew Henry’s and Coffman’s Commentaries reflect on the “forbidden haircut” of Leviticus 19:27:

“Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous.” (Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:27)

“Herodotus tells of the use of this type of haircut, forming what is called a tonsure, as the practice of pagan religious cults of ancient times who did so honoring one of their gods.”
(Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Leviticus 19:27)

The fact is. . . Up until a few years ago, virtually everyone, including the most liberal Christian, KNEW the tattoo was clearly forbidden by the Word of God. And throughout history, the tattoo has ALWAYS been condemned by Bible Believing Christians. Always. Every historical resource ever written on tattoos clearly confirms this fact.

Just as occurred in other cultures with tattoo traditions, when these pagan tribes were ‘converted’ to the Christian religion, their spiritual and cultural rites (which included tattooing, piercing and scarification)were outlawed. . .”
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p.9)

Whenever missionaries encountered tattooing they eradicated it.”
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 101)

“While these and other body modifications continued to be practiced underground as a way for non-Christian people to identify each other, God forbid you got caught and your mark was revealed.”
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p.11)

Up until a few years, virtually every commentary written understood Leviticus 19:28 as an open condemnation of the tattoo. The Christian acceptance of a tattoo was not even considered for serious discussion.

Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the Whole Bible writes under Leviticus 19:28

“nor print any marks upon you–by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It it probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return.”
(Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:28)

James M. Freeman in his excellent book, The New Manners & Customs of the Bible, says of Leviticus 19:28:

“Tattooing Forbidden
Both cutting and tattooing were done by the heathens, and so God forbade His people from doing so in imitation of them.”
(James M. Freeman, The New Manners & Customs of the Bible, 1998 edition, p. 157)

Coffman’s Commentary on the Old and New Testament under Leviticus 19:18 says:

“The cutting of one’s flesh also characterized pagan worship as attested by the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel in the contest with Elijah. Tattooing was also a device of paganism. . . Christians generally disapprove of tattooing, despite the fact of the widespread use of it by many even today. In the light of what God says here, and in view of the history of it, it seems strange that anyone would pay someone else to tattoo him.”
(Coffman’s Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Leviticus 19:28)

Charles R. Erdman in his commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes:

The custom of tattooing was forbidden, while among all the nations of antiquity it was common.” (Charles R. Erdman, The Book of Leviticus, 1951 ed., p.93)

But Naves famous Topical Bible puts it best. Under the topic “Tattooing”, Nave’s simply and bluntly writes: “TATTOOING, forbidden, Lev. 19;28” (Nave’s Topical Bible, p. 1312)

BUT WHAT ABOUT ISAIAH 44:5 & EZEKIEL 9:4?

I’ve seen several references by Christian tattooers who claim Isaiah 44 and Ezekiel 9 are examples of God-ordained tattoos in the Bible.

And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
Ezekiel 9:4

One shall say, I am the Lord’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
Isaiah 44:5

The following excellent explanation of Isaiah 44:5 and Ezekiel 9:4 came from a Jewish web site:

1) In Leviticus 19:28 the term used is “k’thoveth qa’aqa.” “K’thoveth” means “writing or inscription.” “Qa’aqa” comes from a root whose meaning is “to insert or to stick in.” Together, “writing that is stuck in”(see Rashi’s commentary on the verse). Jewish oral tradition explains that the verse is talking about what we refer to today as tattoos, i.e. scratching or piercing the skin and filling it in with pigment.(see the tractate “Makoth” 21a).2) Isaiah 44:5 uses the word “yichtov” which means “will write” without the word “qa’a’qa” “to insert or to stick in.” Isaiah is not talking about tattoos. What he is saying is “…and he will write with his hand to the L-rd…” like someone who signs a contract to express his utmost commitment and obligation(see Metzudath David’s commentary on the verse).

3) Ezekiel 9:4 uses the word “tav” which means “a mark or a sign.” The man clothed with linen is going to mark the foreheads of the righteous with ink, not tattoo them!

Someone who read the verses (Isaiah 44:5 and Ezekiel 9:4) in the Hebrew original would never dream that they are referring to tattoos.
(www.geocities.com/mnlerner2000/let007.html, used with permission)

THE “TATTOOED” LORD JESUS CHRIST. . .

Some Christian tattooers go so far as claim that the Lord Jesus Christ has a tattoo!

Many Christian tattooers claim that when the Lord Jesus Christ returns in Revelation chapter 19 on a horse – He has a tattoo on his thigh!

Revelation 19:11-16 says:
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

I know you don’t believe Christians can be that deceived so here’s the proof:

“And what of Christ Himself? Twice in chapter 19, our Lord is depicted as having a name written on Him (verses 12 and 16). As unthinkable as it may be for some to picture our Lord Jesus as having a tattoo, the author of the Apocalypse had no problem with it.”
(www.larryoverton.com/berean/tatoos.htm)

Revelation 19:16 clearly is referring to the “vesture his thigh” – “. . .he hath on his vesture and on his thigh. . .”

Can anyone with any spiritual discernment (and a brain) really believe the Lord Jesus Christ has a tattoo? Isn’t it amazing how spiritually blind someone becomes when they began to justify their disobedience to the Word of God?

But what really is frightening about this gross, perverted, wicked interpretation of a “tattooed” Jesus Christ in Revelation 19:16 – it makes the Lord Jesus Christ a SINNER!

It means the Lord Jesus CLEARLY disobeyed Leviticus 19:28! It means the Lord Jesus Christ was not Holy! He was not the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. He clearly was disobedient and broke the Leviticual Law of Leviticus 19:28!

And if the Lord Jesus Christ committed sin – everyone is either in hell or on the way to hell. There is no salvation without a sinless, spotless Lamb of God. It took a sinless, perfect, Saviour to pay for your sins.

And thank God – despite what these spiritually sicko, perverted, Christian tattooers “preach” – The Lord Jesus Christ was without sin – and without “tattoo”!

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1 Peter 1:18-19

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2 Corinthians 5:21

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 Peter 2:21-22

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1 John 3:4-5

DEFILING THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD

Most Christians, even the most carnal and backslidden, would never desecrate or defile the local church building. Even among most lost people there is a reverence and sacredness to the church building.

But. . . Did you know?

If you are truly born again the Holy Spirit of God dwells within in (John 14:17, Romans 8:9, 11) and your body is the temple of God. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 makes this very clear.

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

And . . . Did you know?

The Lord warns several times of the seriousness of defiling the temple of God – your body! In 1 Corinthians 3, the Lord clearly and sternly warns against defiling your body – the temple of God. If any man defiles the temple of God – HIM SHALL GOD DESTROY!

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17

My Christian friend, you’d better watch what you do with your body. It is the temple of a Holy God. You’d better not defile it with pagan, devil-worshipping tattoos!

“. . . If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy. . .”

 

NOTE: It is strongly recommended to carefully read all the different sections, in order, as each section compliments the previous.

 

9. Tattoo: The Mark of Regret

Terry Watkins
the Truth Ministries

[Article reprinted with permission]


 

One of the businesses booming (along with the medical profession and pharmaceuticals thanks to the “hepatitis C-tattoo” alliance) as a consequence of the tattoo-craze is the dermatology industry. According to the American Society of Dermatological surgery, over 50% of everyone receiving a tattoo wants it removed.

 

Tattoo removal via laser surgery is among the fastest growing areas of the dermatology industry.

Depending on the size of the tattoo and colors used, the laser tattoo removal surgery can be very painful and very expensive. Tattoos performed by commercial tattoo parlors are much more difficult to remove because the tattoo is deeper, the ink more complex and thicker. It normally takes between 10 and 15 laser surgery sessions to remove the average tattoo, but 25-30 sessions are not uncommon, depending on the complexity of the tattoo. When you consider the average single session costs between $400 – $800, the removal surgery can be very expensive, costing as much as $20,000. That $25 tattoo might cost $5000 to remove. And may I remind you, health insurance does not cover tattoo removals – this is strictly out of the pocket expenses. And yet despite this enormous personal cost, most people are so disgusted with their tattoo they’ll literally pay any cost to have it removed.

Plastic Surgeon Tolbert S. Wilkinson, of San Antonio, Texas, who has removed tattoos warns:

“If people only realized how difficult it is to remove a tattoo, understood how costly and how painful tattoo removal is, and recognized that society as a whole still views tattoos as a stigma, maybe they would think seriously before getting one.
Laser removal costs a minimum of $7,000.00 (national average) per tattoo, and takes at least 10 to 15 treatments, spread out over two or more years. Even with this treatment, the tattoo is still visible.” http://www.heloise.com/tattoo.html

Tattoo author Laura Reybold, writes that “. . .an ever rising number of people are so unhappy with their tattoos that they are willing to pay anything to have them removed.”

Yet an ever rising number of people are so unhappy with their tattoos that they are willing to pay anything to have them removed. Tattoo removal laser surgery is becoming big business for the dermatologists who perform it.”
(Laura Reybold, Everything you need to know about the dangers of tattooing and body piercing, p. 30)

Ronald Scutt, says in Art, Sex and Symbol that even among sailors in the Royal Naval, over 50% regretted ever getting a tattoo. And among the married it rose to over 70%

“From the statistics of the Royal Naval survey, the most significant factor to emerge was almost certainly the incidence of regrets. Out of the whole sample, more than half admitted that they wished they had never been tattooed. In the married group, the figure rose to around 70 per cent.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 179)

One article claims that as many as 80 percent of people with tattoos regret their tattoo. (www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/News/News_Asp/nws_tmp.asp?storyid=02-93)

 

We receieved the following email shortly after we published this article on the web.
(Used with permission).
    I’ve just completed reading your article on tattooing and the truth of it all deeply troubled me. I am a Christian, and like most I’ve back-slidden several times throughout my life. During one of these times, I recieved two tattoos.    One is a “tribal” band on my left arm, though it doesn’t fully circle the whole upper-arm. The other is on my right shoulder, the letters “MSC” in cursive writing signifying the names of my best friend, his wife, and their little daughter. Even though I love my friend and his family, I deeply regret getting their initials tattooed onto my body. Moreover, I seriously and gravely regret with all my heart getting my other tattoo (the tribal band on my left arm).    Being a few years older now (29 and married) there is not a day that goes by that I don’t regret getting these tattoos. When I dress, I’m forced to see them in the mirror. When I shower I’m forced to see them.    What makes matters worse, is that I knew all along that it is was wrong. I justified it with a back-slidden mind by thinking such things as “God only considers the heart and mind”, “physical sins don’t compare to spiritual sins”, and so on, and so on. With my depraved and back-slidden mind, I justified an abomination to God Himself, who instructs us through His divine law not to print any marks on our bodies (Leviticus 19:28). If this is the law that will be used to rightly judge the world, how much more should we as Christians observe and uphold it?    The woman doing my first tattoo (the tribal band) had to stop several times for mysterious reasons. She was visibly shaken and could not concentrate. She kept saying, “man, I need a break.” Though It wasn’t for my sake, I hid the pain very well and tuned it out for the most part–but this woman could not wait to get me out of that chair. She claimed that she drank quite a bit the night before (I was getting the tattoo on a saturday afternoon), and this seemed to be the most logical reason that she was having such a tough time. I can’t help but wonder, however, if there was more to it. Even then my diminished discernment was working, and I sensed a spiritual conflict taking place. When the woman had finished, she made a disturbing remark that will foever echo in mind, “there ya go, you’re no longer a virgin.” Of course, she spoke not of physical sexuality, but of spiritual defilement against God in the form of marking my flesh. Now I was “one of the gang”, one of the “cool people”, and one of the rebels who shakes their fist at the law of God.

    I’m still troubled, even knowing that I’m forgiven. My only hope is for the glorification of the body, when the Lord shall raise us uncorruptable. My tattoos stand as constant reminders of my past depravity when I forsook truly walking with God, and only rendered Him lip-service. They will continue to be my marks of shame for the rest of the time appointed. Thank you for your article. Hopefully this message will get out and all the right people will hear it, and save them from the fate of my shame and regret. It would bring great solace to know that another person would read your article and avert my mistakes–which I would take back in a second if only I had the chance. Through my own research, I’ve drawn all the same conclusions you have concerning tattooing, body modification, and other self-destructive practices.

May the Lord bless you and grant you peace and understanding,

Before you let that ink “mark” you for life you’d better think very careful about the possible health, spiritual and social consequences. Most people later regret, and even hate, their tattoo. The cost of getting a tattoo can be very high among social and health risks.

“Emotional risks include negative feelings you might have as a result of getting a tattoo or piercing. Social risks are those that could damage your relationship with others, including friends, parents, teachers, and employers. . . For example, body modification can affect your chances for future employment. Certain jobs are not available to people who have visible body art.”
(Bonnie B. Graves, Tattooing and body piercing, p. 43)

The fact that so many people change their minds should lead you to think carefully about whether you want to lock yourself into a fashion statement that might cause you a lot of aggravation and heartache later in life.”
(Laura Reybold, Everything you need to know about the dangers of tattooing and body piercing, p. 32)

“What so few realize, tragically, is that such a mark [tattoo] becomes the albatross around the neck for all time.”
(Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 181)

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 5:21-23

 

NOTE: It is strongly recommended to carefully read all the different sections, in order, as each section compliments the previous.

Can a Christian be a Democrat?

christian democrat bumper stickerThis article is intended only for those who call themselves Christians and identify themselves as Democrats.

In writing this post, I realize that I will ruffle a lot of feathers. But that is OK with me.  There is primarily two major competing world views held by people, i.e., a biblical worldview (which relies on absolutes laid out in the bible by God who “changes not,” i.e., immutable) and a progressive/secular view (which determines right or wrong in their own mind – which is relative morality). I adhere to the biblical worldview.

I will not hold back from proclaiming biblical truth simply because someone claims what I write is offensive (which is nothing more than a deceptive and cheap way to marginalize, be dismissive, and avoid personal responsibility for their actions).

Many claim themselves to be a Christian and a Democrat.  If you claim that, you are either deceived (lying to yourself) or ignorant.   There’s an old  saying,

“Just because the mouse is in the cookie jar, doesn’t make him a cookie.”

Likewise, just because you claim yourself to be a Christian, doesn’t make you one. A christian is a Christ follower and one that adheres to scripture and is obedient to the word of God.

The Democratic party openly promotes and supports moral issues that are in contradiction of scripture, specifically in the areas of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion.

For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behavior.  If we deny God’s truths, we call him a liar.

1 John 2:4   “The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

1 John 1:6   “If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.”

While we may differ on the role government plays in our life in regard to social, political, economic, etc. (as pushed by Democrats and Republicans), as Christians who believe in God’s word and call Christ their Savior, there should be no conflict.  We both should see what is written in the Bible as the inerrant word of God.  What God commands us to do, we must follow.  What he calls sin or commands us not to do, we must obey.

If we claim that Christ is our Savior and Lord, and yet vote in people who knowingly promote agendas and laws that are in direct violation of scripture, we place ourselves in battle against God himself.

Let me first provide you insight on what the bible says about these issues:

Biblical View of Homosexuality

Homosexuality is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: “And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God’s viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for “know” in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to “do not so wickedly.” Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

 

The New Testament also addresses the issue of homosexuality:  Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of “the truth of God” (1:25). They refused “to retain God in their knowledge” (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul’s day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God’s commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God’s Word with one’s own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God’s orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan’s big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God’s truth, his mind becomes “reprobate,” meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God’s truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a “vile affection” (1:26). The Greek word translated “vile” (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word “affection” in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The “vile affection” is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Biblical View of Marriage

In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God’s order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won’t.

The New Testament has much more to say about marriage, which has yet even a deeper spiritual meaning  of Christ, the groom, and his bride, the church.

 

Democrats View (taken from the national web site: http://www.democrats.org)

>  Enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes measures prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;

>  Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security;

>  Ensuring civil unions and equal federal rights for LGBT couples, as well as fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act;

Democrats equate homosexuality, bisexual, transsexual/transgender, lesbian and gay behavior to race and/or gender. They love to re-label sinful behavior as a civil rights issue. The Bible calls this behavior sin, and such behavior is made by an individual as a result of personal choice, not birth. To claim that one is born that way (such as in the case of race/gender), and therefore claim they have no choice and that they are only being what they truly are, is a lie and contradicts scripture.  It is nothing more than a convenient excuse and justification for aberrant behavior.

The truth is everyone is born with a sinful nature. We choose or choose not to sin, whether that be lying, stealing, murdering, sexual immorality, and more.  We cannot call that which God calls sin, not sin.  And even more, as Christians, we should not support those parties or people who knowingly embrace, support, and promote behavior that God calls sin.

Clearly, the Democrat position violates scripture in these areas.

Abortion

The numbers are staggering.  Nearly 1,000,000 babies are aborted in the U.S. each year!  This is nothing short of mass murder.

Liberals love to scream “save our forests,” or  “save the whales,” but have no problem taking the life of an unborn child.  A wounded American eagle was found recently in Maryland and rushed to emergency treatment. However, it died and a $5,000 reward was offered for the arrest of whoever injured it. It is illegal to ship a pregnant lobster: it’s a $1,000 fine. In the State of Massachusetts there is an anti-cruelty law that makes it illegal to award a goldfish as a prize. Why? This is what it says, “To protect the tendency to dull humanitarian feelings and to corrupt morals of those who abuse them.” The same people that want to save the goldfish are leading the parade, usually, to kill the babies.

In some metropolitan hospitals, in the major cities of our nation, abortions far outnumber live births. Planned Parenthood has gone so far as to say, “This is nothing more than a means of preventing disease; pregnancy being noted as a disease.” If you think that sounds farfetched, I will remind you of a paper by Dr. Willard Kates, from the Planned Parenthood Physicians Association. The title of the paper is, “Abortion as treatment for unwanted pregnancy: The second sexually transmitted disease.”

Pregnancy then is seen by Planned Parenthood as a sexually transmitted disease that needs to be cured by abortion. Planned Parenthood has somewhere approaching 1,000 abortion clinics doing somewhere approaching 75,000 murders a year, and are receiving millions of dollars of support from the U. S. Government and the United Way, and other agencies like that. Our nation, and other nations in the world are frankly wiping out an entire generation of human beings in mass infanticide.

The official party platform of the Republicans opposes abortion and considers unborn children to have an inherent right to life (this is in line with the Bible).

The Democratic Party platform considers abortion to be a woman’s right.  If she doesn’t want to have a child, she simple chooses to get an abortion. This is like equating the issue of life/death to be as trivial as choosing which color to wear today.

The primary point of conflict in the entire abortion debate is the question of when life begins. If indeed life begins in the womb, then no one could disagree that the fetus (latin for `little one’) is a human being, and is subject to the rights (God’s laws concerning humanity) which befit a human being. First, the Bible establishes that God recognizes a person even before he or she is born. “Before I was born the Lord called me” (Isaiah 49:1).

Exodus 21:22-23 describes a situation in which a man hits a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely. If there is “no serious injury,” the man is required to pay a fine, but if there is “serious injury,” either to the mother or the child, then the man is guilty of murder and subject to the penalty of death. This command, in itself, legitimizes the humanity of the unborn child, and places the child on a level equal that of the adult male who caused the miscarriage.

Scriptural support abounds for the humanity of the unborn child. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Ps 139: 13-16). The Bible, in fact, uses the same Greek word to describe the unborn John the Baptist (Luke 1:41,44), the newborn baby Jesus (Luke 2:12,16), and the young children who were brought to Jesus for his blessing (Luke 18:15).

Perhaps the most stark Biblical revelation of the humanity of the unborn comes in Jeremiah 20, during Jeremiah’s cry of woe in which he laments that he wishes he had never been born, “Cursed be the man who brought my father the news, who made him very glad, saying ‘A child is born to you – a son!’ . . . For he did not kill me in the womb with my mother as my grave” (Jeremiah 20:15-17).

In the aforementioned verses, and in countless other verses, the Bible does indeed establish that an unborn child is just as much a human in God’s eyes as we ourselves are. This indicates that the command “Thou Shall not Murder” (Exodus 20:13) certainly applies to the unborn as well as the already born. Thus, when we read Genesis 9:6, the full realization of what it means to murder comes in to focus, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Murder is an abomination in the sight of God because it is the unauthorized killing of a being made in His own image, and a blurring of the creator/creature distinction (cf. Romans 1).

Clearly, once again Democrats position on abortion runs counter to scripture!

In all these issues, Democrats worldview is in contradiction to the Bible.  This secular worldview colors, taints, affects, distorts and determines how Democrats view other non-spiritual issues, such as: immigration, environmental, science, energy and civil rights, etc.

Regardless of political party, for a Christian to elect people who knowingly embrace, support, and promote behavior and actions that God calls sin, it is a direct violation of revealed scripture.  The wise and prudent Christian should ask themselves if their obedience is to a political party, or to the word of God.

 

The Bible, Slavery, and America’s Founders

The Bible, Slavery, and America’s Founders
Stephen McDowell – 2003
slaveryAmerica’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
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.

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
The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:

  1. Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants)
    Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay.
  2. Voluntary permanent slaves
    If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut.. 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom.
  3. Thief or criminal making restitution
    A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.
  4. Pagans could be permanent slaves
    Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

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
Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

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:

You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

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:

Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear. Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence. To attach themselves voluntarily to a capable man and to serve him, protected by law, is thus a legitimate way of life, although a lesser one. The master then assumes the role of the benefactor, the bestower of welfare, rather that the state, and the slave is protected by the law of the state. A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave. 2

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
There are a number of laws in the Bible related to slavery. They include:

  1. Hebrew slaves (indentured servants) were freed after 6 years.
    If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment (Ex. 21:2).
    If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed (Deut. 15:12-13). Hebrew slaves were to be set free after six years. If the man was married when he came, his wife was to go with him (Ex. 21:3).
    This law did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves (see point 4 under “Types of slavery permitted by the Bible” above), though, as mentioned, any slave showing a desire for freedom was to be safely harbored if they ran away. In violation of this law, many Christian slaves in America were not given the option of freedom after six years (and many escaped slaves were forcefully returned). To comply with the spirit and law of the Old and New Testament, non-Christian slaves should have been introduced by their master to Christianity, equipped to live in liberty, and then given the opportunity to choose to live free. Christianity would have prepared them to live in freedom.
  2. Freed slaves were released with liberal pay.
    When these slaves were set free they were not to be sent away empty handed. They were to be furnished liberally from the flocks, threshing floor, and wine vat (Deut. 15:12-15).
  3. Slaves were to be responsible.
    We have mentioned that some people prefer the security of enslavement to the uncertainty of living free. People who live free have certain responsibilities they must maintain. They cannot have the fruit of freedom without the responsibilities of freedom. It is within this context that the following law can be understood:
    “If he [a Hebrew slave] comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.” (Ex. 21:3-4)
    Rushdoony comments:
    The bondservant, however, could not have the best of both worlds, the world of freedom and the world of servitude. A wife meant responsibility: to marry, a man had to have a dowry as evidence of his ability to head a household. A man could not gain the benefit of freedom, a wife, and at the same time gain the benefit of security under a master.” 4
    Marrying as a slave required no responsibility of provision or need of a dowry. He gained the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities associated with it. Rushdoony continues:
    If he married while a bondservant, or a slave, he knew that in so doing he was abandoning either freedom or his family. He either remained permanently a slave with his family and had his ear pierced as a sign of subordination (like a woman), or he left his family. If he walked out and left his family, he could, if he earned enough, redeem his family from bondage. The law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognize his position and accept it with grace. Socialism, on the contrary, tries to give the slave all the advantages of his security together with the benefits of freedom, and, in the process, destroys both the free and the enslaved.” 5
  4. Runaway slaves were to go free.
    As mentioned earlier, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says that a runaway slave was to go free. He was to be welcomed to live in any of the towns of Israel he chose. The Israelites were not to mistreat him. Rushdoony says that, “Since the slave was, except where debt and theft were concerned, a slave by nature and by choice, a fugitive slave went free, and the return of such fugitives was forbidden (Deut. 23:15,16).” This aspect of Biblical law was violated by American slavery and the United States Constitution (see Art. IV, Sec. 2, Par. 3). “Christians cannot become slaves voluntarily; they are not to become the slaves of men (1 Cor. 7:23), nor ‘entangled again with the yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1).” 6 Those who became Christians while slaves were to become free if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). If they could not, they were to exemplify the character of Christ (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2). Eventually, Christianity would overthrow slavery, not so much by denouncing it, but by promoting the equality of man under God, and teaching the principles of liberty and the brotherhood of mankind under Christ. It would be the responsibility of Christians, especially those who found themselves in a place of owning slaves (for example, many Christian Americans in the past inherited slaves) to teach such ideas, and then act accordingly. Many Christians in early America did just this. Phyllis Wheatley was introduced to Christianity by her masters, educated, and given her freedom. Many American Christians, in both North and South, at the time of the Civil War did much to educate slaves Biblically. Stonewall Jackson, who never owned slaves himself and was against slavery, conducted many classes in his church to educate slaves.
  5. Excessive punishment of slaves was forbidden.
    A slave could be punished by striking with a rod (Ex. 21:20-21), but if the punishment was excessive, the slave was to be given his freedom (Ex. 21:26-27; Lev. 24:17). This included knocking out the tooth or damaging the eye. This applied to indentured servants as well as other slaves. Since the owner would lose his investment in such a situation, there was a financial incentive for just treatment.
    Just treatment of slaves was required of the masters. Paul writes: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” (Col. 4:1)
  6. Slaves could be brought into the covenant.
    Slaves could be circumcised (brought into the covenant) and then eat of the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43-44; Gen. 17:12-13). Slaves could also eat of holy things (Lev. 22:10-11).
  7. Slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance.
    (See Gen. 24:2 and Prov. 17:2.)
  8. Slaves were to rest on the Sabbath like everyone else.
    The Fourth Commandment applied to all (Ex. 20:8-11).
  9. Female slave laws were for their protection.
    Exodus 21:4-11 gives some laws about female slaves, which served for their protection. These Hebrew female slaves were without family to assist them in their need or to help to provide security for them. These slaves laws were a way to protect them from abuse not faced by males and to keep them from being turned out into the street, where much harm could come to them.

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
When Paul wrote how slaves and masters were to act (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Col. 3:22-25; Titus 2:9-10), he was not endorsing involuntary slavery or the Roman slave system. He was addressing the attitudes, actions, and matters of the heart of those Christians who found themselves in slavery or as slave owners. This encompassed many people, for half the population of Rome and a large proportion of the Roman Empire were slaves. Many people were converted to Christianity while slaves or slave owners, and many Christians were enslaved.

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 Bible gives no hint as to how the master received his returning slave. But there is a tradition that says his master did receive him, and took Paul’s veiled hint and gave the slave his liberty. That is the way the Gospel works. Christ in the heart of the slave made the slave recognize the social usages of his day, and go back to his master determined to be a good slave and live out his natural life as a slave. Christ in the heart of the master made the master recognize the slave as a Christian brother and give him his liberty. There is a tradition that Onesimus afterward became a bishop of Berea. 7

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
Slavery has existed throughout the world since after the fall of man. Egypt and other ancient empires enslaved multitudes. Greece and Rome had many slaves, taken from nations they conquered. Slavery was a part of almost every culture. While some Christian nations had taken steps to end slavery, it was still an established part of most of the world when America began to be settled.

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 people suggest today that all early Americans must have been despicable to allow such an evil as slavery. They say early America should be judged as evil and sinful, and anything they have to say should be discounted. But if we were to judge modern America by this same standard, it would be far more wicked – we are not merely enslaving people, but we are murdering tens of millions of innocent unborn children through abortion. These people claim that they would not have allowed slavery if they were alive then. They would speak out and take any measures necessary. But where is their outcry and action to end slavery in the Sudan today? (And slavery there is much worse than that in early America.)

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.
The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America’s leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11

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 inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12

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:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15

Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:

Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16

Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17

Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] – Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18

Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19
My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20

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:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22

Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:

A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.. 23

The Founders took action against slavery.
The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24

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:

When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master’s heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26

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:

Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,…courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28

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
The issue of slavery was considered at the Constitutional Convention. Though most delegates were opposed to slavery, they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They saw a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty (which was by no means guaranteed to survive). They did not agree to abolish slavery as some wanted to do, but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years. 30 No nation in Europe or elsewhere had agreed to such political action.

Even so, many warned of the dangers of allowing this evil to continue. George Mason of Virginia told the delegates:

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. 31

Jefferson had written some time before this:

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. 32

Constitutional Convention Delegate, Luther Martin, stated:

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 33

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:

Slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression. 35

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
Most of America’s Founders thought slavery would gradually be abolished. Roger Sherman said that “the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete it.” 36 But it was not. Why?

  1. Succeeding generations did not have the character and worldview necessary to complete the task started by the Founders. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Each generation must take up the cause of liberty, which is the cause of God, and fight the battle. While the majority view of the Founders was that American slavery was a social evil that needed to be abolished, many in later generations attempted to justify slavery, often appealing to the Scriptures (though, I believe, in error at many points, as mentioned earlier).
  2. American slavery was not in alignment with Biblical slave laws and God’s desire for liberty for all mankind. This inconsistency produced an institution that proved too difficult to gradually and peacefully abolish. Some Founders (like Henry and Jefferson) could not see how a peaceful resolution was possible and gave the “necessary evil” argument. Henry said: “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” 37
    Jefferson was opposed to slavery yet he thought that once the slaves gained freedom, a peaceful coexistence of whites and blacks would be very difficult to maintain. Jefferson predicted that if the slaves were freed and lived in America, “Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites’ ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” 38
    This is why many worked (especially many from Virginia, like James Monroe and James Madison) to set up a country in Africa (Liberia) where the freed slaves could live. Some at this time did not see integration as possible, and apart from the power of God, history has shown it is not possible, as there have been and are many ethnic wars. The church must lead the way in race relations, showing all believers are brothers in Christ, and all men have a common Creator.
  3. The invention of the cotton gin, which revived the economic benefit of slavery, also contributed to a shift in the thinking of many Americans. At the time of independence and the constitutional period most people viewed slavery as an evil that should and would be abolished. But by the 1830s, many people, including some Southern ministers, began to justify it. Some, like Calhoun, even said it was a positive thing. Others justified it by promoting the inequality of the races. Stephen Douglas argued that the Declaration only applied to whites, but Lincoln rejected that argument and sought to bring the nation back to the principles of the Declaration. In the end these principles prevailed.

The Civil War
It is not the intent of this article to examine the War between the States. 39 The causes behind the war were many. Certainly slavery was a part of the cause (and for a small number of wealthy and influential Southern slave owners, it was probably primary), but slavery was not the central issue for all people in the South. Most Southerners did not own slaves and most of those who did had only a small number. 40

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.
(Stephen McDowell is president of the Providence Foundation, a Christian educational organization whose mission is to spread liberty, justice, and prosperity among the nations by instructing individuals in a Biblical worldview.)


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).

 


Endnotes
1. R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol.1, p. 137.(Return)
2. Rushdoony, p. 286.(Return)
3. Rushdoony, pp. 485-486.(Return)
4. Rushdoony, p. 251.(Return)
5. Rushdoony, p. 251. (Return)
6. Rushdoony, p. 137.(Return)
7. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), p. 645.(Return)
8. Albert Bushnell Hart, The American Nation: A History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1906), vol. 16, Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841, p. 50.(Return)
9. “History of slavery is wide-ranging saga”, book review by Gregory Kane of The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas (Simon and Schuster), in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Va., December 7, 1997.(Return)
10. The earliest known official protest against slavery in America was the Resolutions of Germantown, Pennsylvania Mennonites, February 18, 1688. See Documents of American History, Henry Steele Commager, editor (New York: F.S. Crofts & Co., 1944), 37-38.(Return)
11. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786. In “The Founding Fathers and Slavery” by David Barton, unpublished paper, p. 5. (Return)
12. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.(Return)
13. Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 439. In “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1.(Return)
14. Hart, p. 53.(Return)
15. Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington: A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), p. 319.(Return)
16. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820. In Barton, p. 3.(Return)
17. Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.. In Barton, p. 4.(Return)
18. Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4.(Return)
19. Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2.(Return)
20. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3.(Return)
21. “An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery” (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.(Return)
22. The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p. 25.(Return)
23. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.(Return)
24. Benjamin Quarles, The Negro and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), chaps. 4-6. In West, p. 2.(Return)
25. Barton, p. 5.(Return)
26. N. Dwight, The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr, 1860), p. 11.(Return)
27. West, p. 4. (Return)
28. Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818), in West, p. 4.(Return)
29. Mississippi v. Jones (1820), in West, p. 4.(Return)
30. Congress banned the exportation of slaves from any state in 1794, and in 1808 banned the importation of slaves. The individual states had passed similar legislation prior to 1808 as well. However, several Southern states continued to actively import and export slaves after their state ban went into effect.(Return)
31. Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, Va.: Providence Foundation, 1991), p. 227.(Return)
32. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Trenton: Wilson & Blackwell, 1803), Query XVIII, pp. 221-222. (Return)
33. Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately Held at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Eleazor Oswald, 1788), p. 57. In Barton, p. 4.(Return)
34. West, p. 5. See Max Farrand, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), vol. 2, p. 417 (remarks on August 25), and pp. 601 (report of Committee of Style), 628 (Sept. 15). See also Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, August 25.(Return)
35. Luther Martin, Genuine Information (1788), in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), vol. 2, p. 62. In West, p. 6..(Return)
36. Remarks at the Constitutional Convention, August 22, Farrand, vol. 2, pp.. 369-72. In West, pp. 7-8.(Return)
37. Henry to Robert Pleasants, Jan. 18, 1773, in Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), vol. 1, p. 517; Elliot, Debates, vol. 3, p. 590. In West, p. 6. Henry also pointed out that convenience contributed to the continuation of slavery. He said: “Is it not surprising that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined with precision in a country above all others fond of liberty ‹ that, in such an age, and in such a country, we find men, professing a religion the most humane and gentle, adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty? Believe me, I honor the Quakers for their noble efforts to abolish slavery. Every thinking, honest man regrets it in speculation, yet how few in practice from conscientious motives. Would any man believe that I am master of slaves of my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not, I cannot justify it. For however culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue as to won the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and to lament my own non-conformity to them.” In John Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise; or, Who Has the Right to Vote? (Philadelphia: Merrihew & Son, 1865), pp. 31-32.(Return)
38. Jefferson’s Notes, Query XIV, p. 188. (Return)
39. See America’s Providential History, chapter 16 for more on a providential view of the war.(Return)
40. See Hart, pp. 67 ff. Hart records that in 1860 only about 5% of the white population made a substantial profit of slave-keeping (a direct profit; many others benefited from the commerce associated with slavery). About 2% of this number (0.1% of the total white population) were large plantation owners who exerted much political influence.
Some people have pointed out that only 3% of Southerners owned slaves. While this is technically true in some measure, it is misleading. The 3% reflects ownership by the head of the household and does not include all its inhabitants. Taking this into account, at the time of the Civil War about 19% of the population lived in households with slaves; and this was 19% of total population which included a large number of slaves. When you consider that in 6 Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina), there were almost as many or more slaves than whites, this 19% figure actually represents 35%-45% of the white population (in those states) having a direct relation to a home that had slaves.(Return)
41. See America’s Providential History, chapter 16 for some positive and negative effects of the war. (Return)

 

Source of article:  http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120

The truth about the ‘Separation of Church and State’

“It’s against the Constitution!  Separation of Church and State!!!”

freedom of religion

You hear the phrase all the time by those that despise Christianity in their attempts to rid it from society, and especially its’ influence in government. They never let history or facts stand in their way. The end justifies the means.

What’s appalling is they don’t want to know the truth.  They claim to be wise, yet demonstrate a lack of even a modicum of research or facts to back up their assertions.

Romans 1:22  “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”

This is nothing but “willful ignorance.”  We have a generation of youth being brainwashed (programmed) by the public school system (dominated primarily by liberals/progressives) to actually believe that ‘Separation of Church and State’ exist in the Constitution. It doesn’t.

Want the truth about this phrase. Read this well-written and documented article by David Barton.

 

The Separation of Church and State
David Barton – 01/2001

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1]

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2]

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7]

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” [10] That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.


Endnotes
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

2. Id.

3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.

4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).

13. Reynolds at 163.

 

 

Article Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=123

 

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

obama stand with muslims

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.

 

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President
Article by David Barton – 12/20/2013
When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

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. [1]
    • February 2013 – The Obama Administration announces that the rights of religious conscience for individuals will not be protected under the Affordable Care Act. [2]
    • 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. [3]
    • 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. [4]
    • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. [5]
    • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. [6]
    • November 2011 – President Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. [7]
    • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. [8]
    • 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. [9]
    • 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. [10]
    • 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. [11]
    • 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. [12]
    • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. [13]
    • 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. [14]
    • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. [15]
    • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. [16]
    • 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. [17]
    • 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. [18] 
    • 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.” [19] 

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. [20]
    • December 2013 – An Air Force base that allowed various public displays ordered the removal of one simply because it contained religious content. [21]
    • 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.” [22]
    • 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. [23]
    • 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.” [24]
    • 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. [25]
    • 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. [26]
    • 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. [27]
    • 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.” [28]
    • 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. [29]
    • 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. [30] 
    • 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.” [31] 
    • 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. [32]
    • 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. [33]
    • 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,” [34] affirming if a sharing of faith makes someone feel uncomfortable that it could be a court-marital offense [35] — 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. [36] 
    • 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.” [37] 
    • 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. [38] 
    • 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’ [39] 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.” [40] 
    • 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. [41] 
    • 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. [42] 
    • 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. [43] 
    • 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. [44] 
    • 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. [45] 
    • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). [46] 
    • February 2012 – The Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. [47] 
    • 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. [48]
    •  November 2011 – President Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. [49]
    • 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. [50] 
    • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. [51] 
    • 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.” [52] 
    • 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). [53]
    • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. [54] 
    • 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. [55] 

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. [56] 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. [57] 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. [58]
    • 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. [59] 
    • 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. [60] 
    • 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. [61] 
    • 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. [62] 
    • 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. [63] 
    • 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. [64] 
    • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. [65] 
    • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. [66] 
    • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. [67] 
    • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. [68] 
    • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. [69] 
    • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. [70] 
    • 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.” [71] 
    • 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. [72] 
    • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. [73] He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. [74] 
    • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. [75] 
    • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. [76] 
    • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. [77] 
    • 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. [78]
    • 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. [79] 
    • 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. [80] 

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

    • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, [81] but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. [82] 
    • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. [83] 
    • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. [84] 
    • 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. [85] 
    • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. [86] 
    • 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. [87] 
    • 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. [88] 
    • 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. [89]

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.


[1] Todd Starnes, “DOJ Defunds At-Risk Youth Programs over “God” Reference,” Townhall, June 25, 2013.
[2] Steven Ertelt, “Obama Admin’s HHS Mandate Revision Likely Excludes Hobby Lobby,” LifeNews.com, February 1, 2013; Dan Merica, “Obama proposal would let religious groups opt-out of contraception mandate,” CNN, February 1, 2013.
[3] Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Minister Backs Out of Speech at Inaugural,” New York Times, January 10, 2013; Eric Marrapodi, “Giglio bows out of inauguration over sermon on gays,” CNN, January 10, 2013.
[4] Audrey Hudson, “Obama administration religious service for student loan forgiveness,” Human Events, February 15, 2012.
[5] Ted Olson, “Church Wins Firing Case at Supreme Court,” Christianity Today, January 11, 2012.
[6] Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day,” U.S. Department of State, December 6, 2011.
[7] Todd Starns, “Obama Administration Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial,” Fox News, November 4, 2011.
[8] Joel Siegel, “Obama Omits God From Thanksgiving Speech, Riles Critics,” ABC News, November 25, 2011.
[9] Chuck Donovan, “HHS’s New Health Guidelines Trample on Conscience,” Heritage Foundation, August 2, 2011.
[10] Chris Johnson, “ENDA passage effort renewed with Senate introduction,” Washington Blade, April 15, 2011.
[11] Marrianne Medlin, “Amid criticism, President Obama moves to fill vacant religious ambassador post,” Catholic News Agency, February 9, 2011; Thomas F. Farr, “Undefender of the Faith,” Foreign Policy, April 5, 2012.
[12] LadyImpactOhio, ” Feds sued by Veterans to allow stolen Mojave Desert Cross to be rebuilt,” Red State, January 14, 2011.
[13] “Remarks by the President at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia,” The White House, November 10, 2010.
[14] Meredith Jessup, “Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence,” The Blaze, October 19, 2010.
[15] Johanna Neuman, “Obama end Bush-era National Prayer Day Service at White House,” Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2009.
[16] Jim Lovino, “Jesus Missing From Obama’s Georgetown Speech,” NBC Washington, April 17, 2009.
[17] Chris McGreal, “Vatican vetoes Barack Obama’s nominees for U.S. Ambassador,” The Guardian, April 14, 2009.
[18] Aliza Marcus, “Obama to Lift ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers,” Bloomberg, February 27, 2009; Sarah Pulliam Baily, “Obama Admin. Changes Bush ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers,” Christianity Today, February 18, 2011.
[19] Sarah Pulliam Baily, “Obama: ‘They cling to guns or religion’,” Christianity Today, April 13, 2008.
[21] Todd Starnes, “Air Force removes Nativity scene,” Fox News, December 9, 2013.
[23] Todd Starnes, “Catholic priests in military face arrest for celebrating Mass,” Fox News, October 5, 2013; The Brody File, “Priest: Obama Admin. Denied Mass to Catholics,” CBN News, October 8, 2013.
[24] Adan Salazar, “DoD Training Manual: ‘Extremist’ Founding Fathers ‘Would Not Be Welcome In Today’s Military’,” infowars.com, August 24, 2013.
[25] Chad Groening, “‘I cannot answer your question:’ Air Force Sgt. says lesbian commander booted him,” One News Now, August 20, 2013.
[26] “Military gives bonuses only to same-sex couples,” WND, August 20, 2013.
[27] Melanie Korb, “Air Force Invites Drag Queens to Perform on ‘Diversity Day’,” Charisma News, August 19, 2013.
[28] Chad Groening, “Attorney demands answers for Air National Guard sergeant punished for beliefs,” OneNewsNow, July 15, 2013.
[29] Todd Starnes, “Chaplain Ordered to Remove Religious Essay From Military Website,” FoxNews Radio, July 24, 2013.
[30] Hellen Cook, “Pentagon Censors Christian Art,” Christian News Wire, January 21, 2010.
[31] Todd Starnes, “Obama ‘Strongly Objects’ to Religious Liberty Amendment,” Townhall, June 12, 2013.
[32] Todd Starnes, “Air Force Removes Video that Mentions God,” Fox News Radio. June 7, 2013.
[33] Todd Starnes, “Army Punishes Soldier who Served Chick-fil-A,” Fox News Radio, June 5, 2013.
[34] “Liberty Institute Calls On U.S. Department Of Defense To Abandon Shift In Military’s Proselytizing Policy,” PR Newswire, May 7, 2013; Todd Starnes, “Air Force Officer Told to Remove Bible from Desk,” Townhall.com, May 3, 2013.
[35] “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith,” Breitbart, May 1, 2013.
[36] Todd Starnes, “Air Force Officer Told to Remove Bible from Desk,” Townhall.com, May 3, 2013.
[37] Jack Minor, “Military Warned ‘evangelicals’ No. 1 Threat,” WND, April 5, 2013.
[38] Todd Starnes, “Army Removes Bible Reference from Scopes,” Fox News Radio, April 22, 2013.
[39] “Chaplain endorsers ask Air Force for equal time,” Alliance Defending Freedom, April 30, 2013.
[40] Todd Starnes, “Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted,” Fox News Radio, April 30, 2013.
[42] “U.S. military insignia no longer allowed on Bibles,” CBN News, June 14, 2012.
[43] Patrick Goodenough, “White House ‘Strongly Objects’ to Legislation Protecting Military Chaplains from Doing Same-Sex Weddings or Being Forced to Act Against Conscience,” cnsnews.com, May 16, 2012.
[44] Markeshia Ricks, “Bible checklist for Air Force lodges going away,” Air Force Times, April 16, 2012.
[45] Ken Blackwell, “Gen. Boykin Blocked At West Point,” cnsnews.com, February 1, 2012.
[46] Geoff Herbert, ” Air Force unit removes ‘God’ from logo; lawmakers warn of ‘dangerous precedent’,” syracuse.com, February 9, 2012.
[47] Todd Starnes, “Army Silences Catholic Chaplains,” Fox News Radio, February 6, 2012.
[48] “Air Force Academy Backs Away from Christmas Charity,” Fox News Radio, November 4, 2011.
[49] Todd Starnes, “Obama Administration Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial,” Fox News, November 4, 2011.
[50] Jenny Dean, “Air Force Academy adapts to pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans,” Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2011.
[51] “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion,” Department of the Air Force, September 1, 2011.
[52] “Wounded, Ill, and Injured Partners in Care Guidelines,” Department of the Navy (accessed on February 29, 2012).
[53] Jason Ukman, “Air Force suspends ethics course that used Bible passages that train missle launch officers,” Washington Post, August 2, 2011.
[54] “Houston Veterans Claim Censorship of Prayers, Including Ban of ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’,” Fox News, June 29, 2011.
[55] Todd Spangler, “U.S. firm to remove Bible references from gun sights,” USA Today, January 21, 2010.
[56] Patrick Howley, “Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people,” The Daily Caller, August 8, 2013.
[57] “The Story of the Creation of the Nation’s First Hospital,” University of Pennsylvania Health System (accessed August 14, 2013).
[58] Wendy Wright,” USAID Rep Shuts Down Workshop on Abortion Complications,” Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, August 9, 2013.
[59] “Obama Administration Ignores Outcries, Finalizes HHS Mandate Targeting Religious Freedom,” Liberty Counsel, July 1, 2013; Baptist Press, “Moore, others: Final mandate rules fail,” Townhall, July 1, 2013.
[60] Tony Perkins, “Obama administration begins training homosexual activists around the world,” LifeSiteNews, June 6, 2013.
[61] Ken Blackwell, “Guest Opinion: Take a Risk for Peace. Move our Embassy to Jerusalem!,” Catholic Online, June 5, 2013.
[63] Jerry Markon, “Health, abortion issues split Obama administration and Catholic groups,” Washington Post, October 31, 2011.
[64] Luis Martinez, “Will Same Sex Marriages Pose a Dilemma for Military Chaplains?,” ABC News, October 12, 2011.
[65] Elisabeth Bumiller, “Obama Ends ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy,” New York Times, July 22, 2011; George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.
[66] Steven Ertelt, “Obama Admin Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos,” LifeNews, March 2, 2011.
[67] Brian Montopoli, “Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA,” CBSNews, February 23, 2011.
[68] Steven Ertelt, “President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation,” LifeNews, February 11, 2012.
[69] Steven Ertelt, “Obama, Congress Cut Funding for 176 Abstinence Programs Despite New Study,” LifeNews, August 26, 2010.
[74] Steven Ertelt, “Obama Budget Funds Sex Ed Over Abstinence on 16-1 Margin,” LifeNews, February 14, 2011.
[78] Steven Ertelt, “ Obama Administration Announces $50 Million for Pro-Forced Abortion UNFPA,” LifeNews, March 26, 2009; Steven Ertelt, “President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation,” LifeNews, February 11, 2012.
[79] Jeff Mason and Deborah Charles, “Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding,” Reuters, January 23, 2009.
[80] “Obama pick: Taxpayers must fund abortions,” World Net Daily, January 27, 2009.
[81] Masoud Popalzai and Nick Paton Walsh, “ Obama apologizes to Afghanistan for Quran burning,” CNN, February 23, 2012.
[84] Chuck Norris, “ President Obama: Muslim Missionary? (Part 2),” Townhall.com, August 24, 2010; Chuck Norris, “President Obama: Muslim Missionary?,” Townhall.com, August 17, 2010.
[85] Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner,” The White House, August 13, 2010; “Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero,” Fox News, August 13, 2010; Pamela Geller, “Islamic Supremacism Trumps Christianity at Ground Zero,” American Thinker, July 21, 2011.
[88] Barack Obama, “ Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner,” The White House, September 1, 2009; Kristi Keck, “ Obama tones down National Day of Prayer observance,” CNN, May 6, 2009; Dan Gilgoff, “ The White House on National Day of Prayer: A Proclamation, but No Formal Ceremony,” U.S. News, May 1, 2009.
[89] “WH Fails to Release Easter Proclamation,” Fox Nation, April 25, 2011; “President Obama ignores most holy Christian holiday; AFA calls act intentional,” American Family Association (accessed on February 29, 2012).
Article Source:   http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=106938

Have yourself a politically correct Christmas

The following article was originally posted at: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4437550.html
Reprinted with permission.

ADAM CH’NG

Adam Ch'ng

What is it about the explicitly Christian Christmas card that we find so offensive? Adam Ch’ng is baffled by attempts to purge Christ from Christmas.

With Christmas fast approaching, employers around the country are distributing ‘approved’ Christmas greetings for employees to forward onto our clients.

These greetings are sure not only to be grammatically correct but more importantly, politically correct and sanitised of any references to Christianity whatsoever.

The last thing that Collins Street corporates would want is to unnecessarily ‘offend’ a client by suggesting that Christmas is somehow related to, well, Christianity. In fact, HR departments across Australia almost certainly exchange a handbook titled, Christmas Cards: Prohibited Words and Phrases. This list undoubtedly includes ‘Christ’, ‘Christmas’ and even words with vague religious overtones like, ‘blessed’.

So acute is society’s rejection of Jesus Christ that even mentioning his name is considered ‘insensitive’, ‘offensive’ and ‘politically incorrect’. It looks like Lord Voldemort has stiff competition – Jesus Christ is the new ‘He Who Must Not Be Named’.

But what is it about the explicitly Christian Christmas card that we find so offensive? Why do we feign moral indignation at the mere mention of Jesus Christ? Indeed, there must be some plausible reason why we seem so offended by and even afraid of a Jewish baby born in a cattle trough over 2,000 years ago.

So violent is our opposition to Jesus Christ that in last year’s Sydney Morning Herald, Rob Brooks engaged in first-class mind-bending reality inversion by attacking the ‘cynical attempts by Christians to hijack the whole fiesta for their own religious ends’. Now you don’t have to be the most puritanical Christian to wonder how that makes any sense at all.

But then again, being criticised by Rob Brooks is, as Paul Keating would say, like being flogged with a warm lettuce. The simple truth is that Brooks and others in the commentariat join a long line of cultural elites throughout history who have hated Christmas and the one whose birth it celebrates. Indeed, King Herod was so threatened by the first Christmas that he ordered the infanticide of every male child under the age of two in Bethlehem and the surrounding regions. Such opposition is nothing new.

King Herod was then, like many are today, threatened by Jesus Christ, the newborn child of a carpenter and his wife – the incarnate God. Let’s be clear, the incarnation of God did not represent some divinely painless birth of an inoffensive caricature of ‘gentle Jesus, meek and mild’. For Christians across the ages, the incarnation of God heralded the triumphal and yet humble coming of the King of Kings for his subjects. It marked the centre point of human history where the creator God became created man to ‘bring good news to the poor … to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, …to comfort all who mourn’ (Isaiah 61:1-2).

For the shepherds who watched their flocks by night, for the kings of Orient and for all who celebrate the birth of Christ, the first Christmas was then and remains today the best news in the world. As the world struggles to comprehend the darkness of the human heart and the horror of the Newtown shootings, the Christmas message of humanity’s reconciliation with God and each other could not come soon enough.

And therein lies the great offence – the reason why so many seek to purge Christ from Christmas. The incarnation of God at Christmas calls our bluff and exposes humanity’s underbelly. It shows us that something in our world has gone seriously wrong. And above all else, it demonstrates that we are not as in control as we would like to think we are. The first Christmas was (and still is) offensive because it demands reception of a King, acknowledgement of our corruption, acceptance of a Saviour, and faith to trust in the baby Jesus Christ who is both Saviour and King.

In her article, ‘Decaf Christmas‘, Justine Toh rightly observes that many of us opt for a ‘decaf Christ’, a Christmas without the strong and at times discomfiting caffeinated message of Jesus. Others take it further still and attempt to redefine Christmas as the inoffensive chai latte of holiday festivities. Censoring Christ from every Christmas greeting may escape offending our clients but it deprives us all of the hope that the parents of Newtown (and by extension the rest of us) desperately need.

So this year, I intend to send the most politically incorrect Christian Christmas cards that I can find. For the Christmas message with one hand exposes the inconvenient and offensive problem of humanity’s dark underbelly; but with other, it provides the answer by proclaiming peace on earth, and goodwill among men.

Adam Ch’ng is a graduate at a law firm in Melbourne where he principally practices employment and workplace relations law. View his full profile here. The views expressed here are those solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his employer or any other organisation.

School bans Christmas trees, the colors red & green

[Original Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/05/school-bans-christmas-trees-

christmas_prohibited


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.

Categories