Politics and Religion

How religion is viewed by different political parties.

Ban Truth – Reap Tyranny!

Ban Truth – Reap Tyranny

by Berit Kjos

Revised December 1, 2004

Skip down to ACLU or United Religion and Sun Myung Moon

Note: Many of the links below are now obsolete.


“It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge.”1 Alabama’s former Chief Justice Roy Moore

“Whereas… both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God…  I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be….”2 George WashingtonThanksgiving Proclamation, 1789

“If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn, January 3, 1701

 

“My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water.” Jeremiah 2:12-13


Once again history repeats itself.  Like ancient Israel, America has gradually been turning its back to God. While Christians from coast to coast were awakened by Judge Roy Moore’s call for a return to religious freedom and Constitutional integrity, their minority response will hardly untangle the roots of anti-Christian socialism now imbedded in our government and civil society. 

Do you wonder why US leaders would ban God’s universal guidelines for law and order, then choose social philosophies that turn our God-given personal “rights” into the impersonal “rights” of the “greater whole”? Why would they trade our heritage of freedom for oppressive restrictions and unconstitutional limitations on free speech? And why would a federal judge in Alabama ban a stone replica of the Ten Commandments but permit the purchase (using federal funds) of a pagan statue honoring Themis, the Greek goddess of law?

Actually, in light of history, these paradoxes make some sense. As our nation bans truth and forgets God’s Word, it weakens both discernment and resistance to the flood of spiritual and social alternatives. Craving thrills more than truth, the majority will barely notice the change. That’s one reason why the National Park service dared to name some of the Grand Canyon’s majestic formations after Hindu gods, then ban the small Scripture plaques that praised God for the beauty of His creation.3

Do you doubt this is happening? Then take a look at the following trends and events. They point to a sobering reality which America, like ancient Israel, prefers to ignore.

1. Basing legal opinions on UN and European models. Dissatisfied with American law and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently announced that “The Supreme Court is looking beyond America’s borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights.”4

Justice Breyer went a step further. “The world is growing together through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America. It is becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people … And whether our constitution fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think, will be a challenge for the next generation.”5

Nothing will undermine American values, freedom and sovereignty faster than reframing our Constitution by the dimming light of European values and global ideology. The following headlines — from 2001 through August, 2003 — give a short glimpse of the natural course America has chosen to follow:

France Passes Controversial Anti-Cult Law: “Courts can dissolve religious groups and impose heavy fines…. ‘[I]f we want to have children’s church, Sunday school, that can be seen as influencing minors. If we do work for old people, it’s preying on the vulnerable.”

 

Sweden Moves to Criminalize Opposition to Homosexuality: “That means people coming from (the homosexual) lobby group could sit in our churches having on the tape recorder and listen to somebody and say, ‘What you’re saying now is against our constitution.’ … the real intent is to criminalize Christianity.”

 

Free speech falls prey to ‘human rights’: “…there was Toronto printer Scott Brockie, hauled before our version of the Inquisition — a human rights tribunal — and fined for turning down printing business from homosexual activists. And the case of the Christian couple in Prince Edward Island who shut down their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under their own roof.”

 

The Bible as ‘hate literature’? “A prison sentence for quoting the Bible in Canada? Holy Scriptures treated as ‘hate literature’?” 

 

Advocating for religious freedom: “The government of Belarus is presently considering introducing a highly restrictive religion law that would drive Belarus back into Soviet era oppression, crippling the numerous small Protestant evangelical and non-traditional groups.”

 

Will the Bible be banned in America? “An extremely disturbing precedent has been set in Canada that homosexual activists in the U.S. are trying to duplicate. According to a December 2001 decision by a Saskatchewan court of appeals, the Bible is hate literature if it is quoted verbatim and in context when it is used to condemn homosexuality as sin…”

 

U.N. group in ‘showdown with religion’: “At a forum Monday, attended briefly by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, panel members singled out Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants as opponents…. Princeton University professor Anthony Appiah, wondered whether or not religion should be limited, as it poses a ‘challenge’ to the homosexual agenda….”

 

California’s Omnibus Hate Crimes Act of 2004“It is clear that this bill [signed into law September 22, 2004] is intended to punish those who speak out in defense of the pre-born as well as restrict the rights of persons to speak out against homosexuality…. Why are crimes against certain people or classes of people more deserving of stronger punishment than the same crimes committed against persons or classes of persons that do not fit into the designated ‘hate-victim’ list [which lists “anti-reproductive rights crimes, gender-bias crimes, anti-immigrant crimes, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic crimes and…actual or perceived homelessness”]? Are their lives of less importance? Isn’t this tantamount to legal discrimination?

Did you notice the “new” views of right or wrong? Our world can’t tolerate the old Biblical laws that identify certain behaviors as sin and certain beliefs as incompatible with Christian faith. Offended by the truth, it bans the convictions that once gave rise to social order and prosperity. Its new systems leave no room for an uncompromising moral standard which can’t be conformed to man’s shortsighted vision of the 21st century community. [Isaiah 5:20]

2. Thrashing the Ten Commandments.  Thank God for Judge Moore who dared to stand against the corrupt establishment. “The people of this state elected me,” he said, “to uphold our constitution, which establishes our justice system, evoking the ‘favor and guidance’ of Almighty God. To do my duty, I must acknowledge God.'”6  

Later, in his Wall Street Journal article, “In God I Trust,” Judge Moore clarified his position:

“We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes ‘the favor and guidance of Almighty God’ as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state’s supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state’s constitution.'”7

Our founding fathers — Deists and Unitarians as well as Christians — never intended to ban the Ten Commandments from public places. They viewed this “Decalogue” as universal law, essential to peace and order in the new Constitutional Republic.  Constitutional lawyer John Eidsmoe explained it well. In “The Decalogue: Cornerstone of Jurisprudence,” he writes:

“The basic values of almost every legal system in the world are summarized in the Ten Commandments. Among these is respect for life, expressed in the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and reflected in the homicide laws of every legal system…. Another basic value is respect for property expressed in the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and reflected in the property laws and larceny laws of most civilizations…. Respect for truth is further expressed in the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ A society that has no respect for truth cannot function….

“Judge Thompson holds court in the Federal Courthouse, a few blocks away from the Alabama State Judicial Building. In front of the Federal Courthouse, standing by itself, is a sculpture of Themis, the Greek goddess of law and justice…. Judge Thompson utterly ignored this fact in his ruling. These two monuments — The Ten Commandments in the Alabama State Judicial Building, and the image of Themis in front of the Federal Courthouse — capsulize the real controversy in this case. Will we be governed by the values of the Ten Commandments as represented by Chief Justice Moore’s monument, or by the values of paganism and statism as symbolized by Themis at the Federal Courthouse?”8
I hope you and I will choose God’s law. After all, He enables us to fulfill it. But contrary forces are driving our nation toward less merciful lawgivers. And a new generation has learned to see both our Constitution and His Word as malleable documents easily adapted to fit our changing times. 

3. Re-learning in government schools. Alabama’s judicial building is not the only public property in the state to be purged of God’s laws. Schools faced the same fate. Across the country, they are shutting their doors to all signs of Christianity. Consider these examples:
School rejected girl’s religious valentines: “A school that allowed students to exchange valentines featuring Britney Spears and boy band ‘N Sync violated a second-grader’s constitutional rights by rejecting her homemade cards celebrating Jesus.”

Poster With Picture of Jesus Lands Kindergartner in Court: “A kindergartener ‘was assigned to draw a poster relating to his class’ study of environmental issues. He drew people picking up litter, children holding hands around the globe and a picture of a white-robed man kneeling in one corner.’ The teacher censored it.”

Christmas book banned from class: “The second graders were told to bring a book to class that represented their Christmas traditions…. Laura was the only student to bring in a religious-based book and was told she could not share her book with the class.”

Anti-discrimination policy threatens 1st Amendment: “Rutgers banned a Christian group from using campus facilities and stripped the group of university funding because it selects leaders on the basis of religious belief…. ‘The real intention is to break or banish religious groups with biblically based opposition to homosexuality.'”

 

The campus crusade against Christ (revisited): “Young Life was told to change their constitution to refer to its membership as a ‘community supporting Christianity’ instead of ‘a community of adult Christians.'”

These orders to hide God’s truth and ignore His values fit into a tragic timeline summarized in our Chronology of Education. But behind the education establishment stands a vast network that joins the media, civil society, socialist organizations and rich foundations together in a common crusade: to transform everything we have treasured about America.  

4. Betraying our nation and deceiving the people. In the frontlines of this battle stands the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). From the beginning it has supported any group or activity that would help undermine Christian values. Controversial issues such as pornography, homosexuality, pedophilia and abortion for minors fit right into its agenda.

Small wonder! Its founder, Roger Baldwin, was a committed Communist. He followed the revolutionary blueprint written by Antonio Gramsci. This influential Communist leader warned his comrades that to win America, they must eradicate Biblical values as a social force. Their Marxist goals would be met, not by violent revolution, but by infiltration into all the main social institutions: the media, schools, government, churches and civil society. All must be enticed into the dialectic process, learn to think collectively and set aside obstacles such as absolute truth. [See Brainwashing in America]

The transformational Marxists,” writes Detective Phillip Worts,” advocated a ‘slow march through the institutions,’ as famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would say….   The Gramsci Strategy is the ‘War of Position’, (i.e. the battle ground is for the mind and culture) vs. the “War of Maneuver”, (i.e. traditional battlefield warfare with guns and bombs).”9

It matches the ACLU strategy: Gradualism. Point by point as in a chess game, you weaken, then block the opposition forces. Today, as the majority of Americans have yielded either to political correctness or to blinding trivia, that destination comes closer and closer. “The Betrayal at the Top: The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union,” summarizes both the heart and the goal of the ACLU:

“…strange conclusions result from the group’s tendency to view the concept of rights as pertaining not to all individuals and what they have the right to do, but rather to groups who use government to take away from others the things they think they deserve. Unlike the authors of the U.S. Constitution, the ACLU views our rights as demanding the fruits of another’s labor rather than the opportunity to earn them ourselves….

“…its Executive Director and moving spirit until 1950 was Roger Baldwin….. he was quoted as saying, ‘I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.’ He gave this advice in 1917 to an associate who was forming another group: ‘Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do….’

“It should not be surprising to note that Baldwin was active during the 1930’s in quite a few of the Communist Party’s United Front organizations….

       “ACLU activists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn would later become leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A….  Despite this partisanship, the ACLU and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation continue to receive substantial yearly support from the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie… and other foundations.”10

Social changes pushed by the ACLU have lured millions away from God. As truth fades from our common language, the vacuum is being filled with a wide assortment of sensual, spiritual and occult thrills — many of which can easily be adapted to UNESCO’s Declaration on the role of religion in a Culture of Peace. They help break down public resistance to an envisioned unifying spirituality and to the new management systems which steer churches as well as governments and corporations toward the planned solidarity[See Reinventing the World]

 

As management guru Peter Drucker observed, “there is a substantial critical mass of people and churches that are already moving.’ …While acknowledging that there are still many unhealthy churches, there is a justified ‘change in basic premises, basic attitudes, basic mind set… on the whole, we are on the march….” 11

 

5. A global spirituality.

 

Leading the quest for an official union of world religions under the wings of the United Nations are two men, each pushing their own self-styled distortion of Christianity. You can read about Episcopal Bishop Swing, founder of the United Religions Initiative, in Heresy in high places.” Swing’s competitor is the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the Washington Times and countless other organizations that have blended into conservative politics and global leadership training. The two fit together.

 

Like an octopus reaching its tentacles in all directions, Rev. Moon seeks to identify with the Christian community as well as with liberal and global institutions. As he gains power and buys influence in high places, his hostility toward genuine Christianity becomes increasingly apparent. In a recent speech promoting his Interreligious and International Federation for World Peacehe exposed his horrendous distortion of the Bible and of God’s purposes:

      “God has been fighting for 2,000 years to build a foundation that can connect to the world…. To find such spiritual people and make the necessary preparations, God is working through a new religious movement centering on Christianity….

     “I hope that all religious people will join their hearts together and follow through on my proposal to establish a council within the United Nations composed of representatives from various religions, parallel with the General Assembly….

     “I have already appointed tens of thousands of Ambassadors for Peace. All around the world, they carry the banner of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace that I founded…. It will not be long before the will of the almighty, omniscient and absolute God is accomplished.”12

But an article titled “Christian Churches Should Stop Using the Cross shows Rev. Moon’s hostility toward the heart of the Christian gospel:

     “An interfaith group founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon is spearheading an effort to have Christian ministers remove crosses from their churches, calling them a symbol of oppression and perceived superiority….

     “The American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC), an organization that began as a project of Moon’s Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), believes the key to ‘true and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is reconciliation between members of the world’s three largest religions…. ‘The cross has served as a barrier in bringing about a true spirit of reconciliation between Jews and also between Muslims and Christians, and thus, we have sought to remove the cross from our Christian churches across America as a sign of our willingness to remove any barrier that stands in the way of us coming together as people of faith.'”13

Moon may be blind to the gospel, but he is right about one thing. The cross is a barrier. Jesus alone gave His life for His people and opened the door to His eternity. The cross separates those who accept His gift of salvation from all others. But if we truly care about others, we will lovingly reach across that barrier with the whole truth, not hide or ignore “the offense of the cross.”

 

6. The only safe position.

 

Today’s social changes would sadden, but not surprise George Washington, the first President of the United States. Back in the 1790s, He knew well that the newly established republic would face opposition. Long before transformational Marxists such as Gramsci, Gorbachev and Roger Baldwin came on the scene, he anticipated their subversive tactics. Long before schools or the ACLU began their crusade to cleanse truth from our land, he warned us that resisters could face persecution.

 

Where did he gain such insight? From the Bible. It is full of illustrations that highlight the unchanging ways of human nature and the conspiracies of foolish men who try to sabotage God’s wise plans. Sobered by these realities, Washington offered some timely warnings in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. . . .

“Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”14

By “religion,” Washington meant Christianity. He read God’s Word, he counted on His promises and he feared the devastating consequences of rejecting the sovereign Ruler of the universe. So at his 1789 inauguration, he placed his hand on a Bible opened to Deuteronomy 28. That amazing chapter brings warnings America would do well to heed today:

 “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth….

“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face…. The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the Lord will make you the head and not the tail…. if you heed the commandments of the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 28:1-14

Does that promise remind you of America?  Its long list of wonderful blessings show the kinds of favors God showered on our nation as well as on ancient Israel. But verse 15 begins a parallel list of consequences for those who reject His ways.

“But…if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments…. that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you…. The Lord will strike you with consumption, with fever, with inflammation, with severe burning fever, with the sword, with scorching, and with mildew…. The Lord will change the rain of your land to powder and dust…. The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies….

“A nation whom you have not known shall eat the fruit of your land and the produce of your labor… Locusts shall consume all your trees and the produce of your land…. The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail…. Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart….” (Deuteronomy 28:47-48)

Could this downward slide to poverty, plagues and servitude be the final page in the history of this blessed nation? Yes, it could — if we, like ancient Israel, refuse to turn back and acknowledge God’s sovereignty.

For our God reigns — whether people believe Him or not. And His warnings to nations are as relevant today as they were over two thousand years ago when Israel traded His protection for the futile promise of capricious pagan gods. It led to disaster, as it will for America if we continue on this path:

“Now all these things happened to them [paganized Israel] as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1 Corinthians 10:11

The world government prophesied in Revelation 13 is no longer a distant dream; it’s taking shape right before our eyes. For our children and grandchildren’s sake — and for the glory our Lord and Redeemer for whom nothing is impossible, let us pray that America wakes up and takes this promise to heart: 

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”  2 Chronicles 7:14-15

 

Endnotes:

1. Jeffrey Gettleman, “Monument is Now Out of Sight, but Not Out of Mind,” New York Times, 8-28-2003.

2. George Washington, Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789, www.crossroad.to/text/articles/Thanksgiving.html

3. Bible verses out at Canyon,” http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0714canyonbible14.html

4.Gina Holland, “Ginsburg: Int’l Law Shaped Court Rulings,” Associated Press, Aug 2, 2003.
5. 
Justice: Can Constitution make it in global age?,” WND, July 7, 2003, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33444See also From U.S. Sovereignty to Global Conformity.

6. Judge Moore Undeterred by Ten Commandments Battle Setbackshttp://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/222003a.asp

7. Judge Roy Moore, “In God I Trust,” Wall Street Journal, 25 August 2003.

8. John Eidsmoe, The Decalogue: Cornerstone of Jurisprudence,” http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2003feb/eidsmoe.shtml

9. Detective Phillip Worts, Community Policingwww.crossroad.to/articles2/Community-Policing.htm

10. William H. McIlhany, “The Betrayal at the Top: The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union.” http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/aclu.htm

11.Peter Drucker on the Church and Denominations. This pdf file is posted on the Leadership Network website at http://www.leadnet.org/allthingsln/archives/netfax/1.pdf

12. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, “God’s Fatherland and the One World,” September 21, 2002. Toward an Interreligious Council at the United Nationshttp://www.truthtrek.net/religion/rev_moon.htmScroll down to this conference and notice the horrendous lies in the speech by Sun Myung Moon — owner of the Washington Times and countless other influential organizations.

13.  Christian Churches Should Stop Using the Cross, [Moon] Group Says

14. Washington’s Farewell Addresswww.crossroad.to\text\articles\WashingtonFarewell.html

 

[Article Reprinted with Permission]
by Bert Kjos 2003
www.crossroad.to

Original Source: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2003/ban-truth.htm

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 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 the enemies of Christianity in their attempts to rid it from society, and especially its’ influence in government. Liberals never let history or facts stand in their way. The end justifies the means.

What’s appalling is liberals 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) 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. (Return)

2. Id. (Return)

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. (Return)

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. (Return)

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. (Return)

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. (Return)

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Reynolds at 163. (Return)

 

 

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

 

Categories