← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Blond Knight

Separation, Secularism, or States Rights?

Thread ID: 12910 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2004-03-28

Wayback Archive

Blond Knight [OP]

2004-03-28 14:59 | User Profile

[URL]www.cofcc.org/[/URL]

Editorial

Separation, Secularism, or States Rights? By James Brown Jr.

There are two extreme positions which divide patriots concerning the subject of the Constitution. The first is a watered down version of the "separation of church and state" myth. The second is the theory that the Constitution is secular and humanist. Both views have been created through a misunderstanding of the order of authority between the Federal government and the States (States Rights).

We have allowed what has been usurped by the Federal government to taint our view of the Constitution. Because of this misguided view of the States and the Federal government, many have created false theories which either contribute to the lies of our enemies or make an enemy out of the Constitution.

These misconceptions have resulted in two divided camps among Bible-believing Christians. One tries to cover-up alleged Constitution problems by saying that "our founders separated church and state, not God and state," while the other attempts to make the Constitution evil and Biblically in error. Both extremes are wrong.

"Separation of Church and State; not God and State"

First of all, this statement gives unconstitutional implications. The Federal government is not the State. This is where a lot of our misconceptions originate. The Federal government is actually the servant and the creation of the States.

The Federal government did not receive its power from God, but was delegated very limited power from the States. The Federal government was created to secure the covenant made between the existing States, yet their power is restrained by the boundaries of the Constitution.

So how did this "separation of church and state" myth originate? 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.”

This faulty idea of separation of church and state does not come from any lawful document but is taken from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury. Most courts had treated it exactly as it was, a private personal letter.

In 1878, after the letter was published, the Court stated:

“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.”

They concluded with these words:

“[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.”

What the Danbury Baptists and many others were concerned about was the establishment of a national church. The First Amendment was not to keep this from being a Christian nation or to keep the government from promoting Christianity and the Bible, but to keep us free to follow any certain Christian sect. It was to keep one denomination from gaining power and persecuting another.

Nowhere in the Constitution can you find the phrase "separation of church and state." It is a myth that did not even come into being until the Twentieth Century. Unfortunately, many good people have fallen prey to this lie.

The States alone can determine the influence of the Church within the State and Federal government. These powers are reserved to the people or the States under the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

To say there was to be a "wall of separation between church and state" is absurd. The State Constitutions were very clear that they could collectively establish religion because that is what they did. Some even had an established state church where others allowed for freedom of Christian Protestant denominations but they still legislated Christianity as the State religion.

"XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State." -North Carolina State Constitution of 1776

"SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:

I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which I think there is a typo here.[stall appear to free] injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities. And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: 'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.' And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State." -Pennsylvania State Constitution of 1776

Secular Constitution

The previous facts also show the hollowness of the secular constitution theory. This theory twists history to make our Founding Fathers deists and atheists when over 90% were blatant orthodox Christians. Absolutely none where atheists. This theory demonizes our Founding Fathers and renounces the Constitution as being a product of humanism.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Although during our founding era the battles over Federalism vs. State’s Rights and Christian Dominion vs. Religious Pluralism had already begun. What these theorists fail to see is that the correct side won the temporary battles of that day. It was not until 1861-1865 that we lost the physical battle to the Federalists and pluralists.

The Constitution is not the cause of federal tyranny and pluralism. Lincoln and the Federalists violated the Constitution repeatedly in order to create what we have today. The Supreme Court accurately rebuffed Lincoln and his policies several times, but to no avail.

John Bassett summarized the situation of Maryland in the book, A Short History of the U.S., when he wrote, “He [Lincoln} ordered the military authorities to arrest the members of the [state] legislature who seemed to be plotting treason, and to hold them prisoners without the benefit of habeas corpus. From their prisons they appealed to Taney, chief justice, who readily decided that they committed no crime against the civil law.”

In the Constitution of the United States we find no justification for Federal supremacy. After all, they are only granted limited power and authority which had been delegated to them by the States.

This is why the Federal government cannot rule on any matter concerning the church. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The reason for this was because the Federal government had not been granted any authority in the matter. Therefore, according to the Constitution they cannot make any laws regarding “religion” because the Federal government is inferior to the States. They are to be silent and have no authority in such matters.

It is not that the Federal government was atheist or deist but it held no power in such issues. They had to follow the dictates of the States which where emphatically Christian. The Federal government and the Constitution were Christian because the States and the people were Christian. Their Christianity is heavily documented in their writings and law.

This secular constitution theory among some patriots is actually a left-wing theory that has been dressed-up for Christians. It is erroneous because it seeks to answer questions that don’t exist. It is like looking through a Federalist lens at something that only came into being because of brute force and unconstitutional laws.

State's Rights

My State, under the original view, is my government. In the early days of this nation we practiced local government and believed that our fundamental right was to govern ourselves in our own State. Indiana was established to be a free and independent State, not a subject of the United States.

“We the Representatives of the people of the Territory of Indiana...having the right of admission into the General Government, as a member of the union, consistent with the constitution of the United States, the ordinance of Congress of one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and the law of Congress, entitle 'An act to enable the people of the Indiana Territory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such state into the union, on an equal footing with the original States' in order to establish Justice, promote the welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; do ordain and establish the following constitution or form of Government, and do mutually agree with each other to form ourselves into a free and Independent state, by the name of the State of Indiana.” -Preamble, Indiana State Constitution, 1816

The people of Indiana, when forming this State, believed that they were setting up a free and independent State. This view can also be seen in City of New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters (36 U.S.) 102, 139 (1837):

“We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any other foreign nation; where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.”

As a “free and independent state” these distinct nations would therefore receive their power from God according to Romans 13 and not the Federal government. Since the State is the highest governmental power in the American system they are under authority to God. This can easily be seen in the State constitutions.

"WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever these great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness." -Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:" -Alabama State Constitution 1901

"TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution." Indiana State Constitution

The American system of order is God, the States (people collectively within the states), and then the Federal government. The reason why we don't find God or Christianity blatantly in the Federal Constitution is not because it is secular but because of the level of authority.

Although the States are subject to the Sovereign God of the Bible, the Federal government did not derive its powers from God. Their power is derived from "we the people" which is defined in the Constitution as the States. Most people fail to see is that "states" and "people" are used interchangeably.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -Tenth Amendment

It was the States or the people who derived their power from God and the Federal Constitution was a compact between the States. The Federal government was a creation of the States and was intended to be subservient to the States. This is why they were not given any power to make any laws "respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." It is not a question then, whether the Federal government or the Constitution is secular, pluralistic, or Christian but from whom does the Federal government get it's powers.

Unquestionably, their powers do not directly come from God but from the States who have been formed by the authority of God. Only the States can lawfully amend the Constitution. Only the States have the authority to change the Federal government's duties and responsibilities, because the Federal government gets it powers from the State.

Conclusion

The problem, as such, is not the Constitution of the United States but what happened to the Constitution when the District of Columbia seized power by force during the War of Federal Aggression in 1861-1865.

One of the most telling of all evidences concerning the difference of our governmental views is the Constitution of Maryland.

"That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof." -1776 Maryland Constitution, Article II

"The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding." 2002 Maryland Constitution, Article II

Notice the night and day difference between the Constitution of Maryland in 1776 and the present one. A little study of history will show that America was turned upside down in the War of Federal Aggression. As an outcome of that war, the authority structure was turned on its head. Since the authority of power now rests with the Federal government this once slave of the States is now taking revenge. It has put the States to work in the cotton fields and is removing God from every fiber of our society.

When the Federalist’s won the war of 1861-1865 they were no longer bound by the Constitution and could determine its rulings. No longer could the States tell them no. This is how they got the unconstitutional 14th Amendment to appear legitimate when it is actually de facto.

Although many people will argue for its legitimacy, it is in reality no law at all. It would never have been taken seriously by our Founding Fathers. Even the liberal book The Constitution: That Delicate Balance written by Fred W. Friendly and Martha J. H. Elliot, agrees.

"It was the peculiar union of those who wanted religious freedom and those states, such as Massachusetts, which feared that the federal government would establish a national religion different from the one already established in their state, that led to the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Even after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, official state churches existed in several colonies such as Massachusetts and Connecticut well into the Nineteenth century, but the federal government was barred from interfering in religious matters.

The Fourteenth Amendment changed this balance--although not until the decisions of the mid-twentieth century. The idea that the due process clause prohibited the states from meddling in religious expression was first asserted in Cantwell v. Connecticut, in 1940."

The real problem is not the Constitution, but that the Confederacy lost the war against the Federalists. For it was Federal victory that brought about the Fourteenth Amendment and every other evil which is bringing curses on our nation.

Many people in the North were deceived, and did not get what they bargained for. In thinking that they were preserving the union of the states established by out Forefathers, instead, we have woke up to the reality that instead a new nation was formed by the Unionists victory. Now it is time for all of us to stand up for what our Founding Fathers established and what the South defended.

James Brown Jr. is a pastor of Union Christian Church in Martinsville, Indiana, editor of the Kingdom Builder’s Report, director of the Independent Christian Action Network (I.C.A.N.), and hosts I.C.A.N.’s radio broadcast. He has been married to his wife, Sonya, for 11 years and is the father of six children (soon to be seven).

Deconstructing Liberals by Beauregarde

"You cannot argue with unreason; you can only describe it." - Santayana

Normal people have the wrong idea about liberals. The wrong idea, fortunately, not because of ignorance or prejudice. Most normal people give liberals the benefit of the doubt and assume liberalism is based on humanitarian impulses which embrace racial equality, multiculturalism, and all the other alchemistry meant to cure hate, intolerance, and the various hinderances to universal siblinghood. What normal people tend overlook is the splenetic angst modern liberalism harbors towards Christian civilization in general and white folks in particular.

To the most extreme liberal, European civilization has already expired and needs only burial in an unmarked grave. This view, bloated by intellectual pretensions under the rubrics of post modernism and deconstruction, holds that Western history, thought, and science are based on false assumptions. Hence, civilization is a fluke, or a willow-the-wisp thrashing away at nothing. Liberals are not bothered that deconstruction may wreck the essentials on which civilization depends, so long as only white men are boiled down to tallow in the ensuing savagery.

By naively separating liberal ideals from the type of person who becomes a liberal, normal people fail to interpret the brain functions of a peculiar mental type. First and last, liberals are control freaks. While they perpetually clamor for everyone to oblige their egalitarian fetishes, with equal fervor they denounce any view that challenges their own prerogatives. LIberals are not held hostage by absolutes separating right from wrong; nor are they bothered by logical cause and effect. Liberals filter reality through their own emotional matrix, which supplies self-sufficient justification for liberal attitudes. In this sense, liberals share certain psychological traits with arsonists and vandals, who are the premordial deconstructionists. Though deconstructionism is nothing more than dialectical mumbo-jumbo, the power of deconstruction to produce raw changes in society is real. By relentlessly criticizing everything traditional, holy, decent, or normal, liberals stir up doubts and false shame in otherwise healthy minds.

Of course, the stimulus behind self-righteous liberal browbeating is not a bleeding heart, but rather an egocentric sense of spiritual supremacy. When liberals extol tolerance, they do so with haughty distain for anyone who does not concede to the liberal mantra on the subject. Liberal tolerance is not a matter balancing opposites without losing the liberal perspective, but is instead a freeze-out of nonliberal views; particularly those ideas concerning white racial consciousness. Due to prevalent liberal attitudes on race, many otherwise rational white people have a superstitious aversion to racial self-awareness. Whites, when confronted by racial hostility, automatically deny being racist. Chief among these superstitions is the notion that all races are created equal.

Besides being control freaks, liberals are narcissists. Obsessed by self-righteousness, liberals do not recognize moral authority except in their own reflection. Any emotional reaction to a situation acts as a default moral imperative for liberals. Hence, crusades like the civil rights movement rolled smoothly from blacks, to women, to homosexuals, to animals. Liberals never paused to consider exactly how all these groups were to be treated as "equals" under the law. Women, for instance, can now demand jobs for which they are totally unsuited by nature. And homosexual couples are now on equal terms with man and wife to legally adopt children. Liberation and Empowerment are the two blessings that liberals bestow on the world...except for white males.

So what is the personal gratification for being self-righteous, narcissistic control freaks? Playing God. Liberal social conscience, and the vain pride that fuels it, compensate for the godlessness inherent to liberal humanism. Lurking in the liberal soul is the desire for adulation by the victim classes whose causes liberals embrace.

The abolitionist movement of the 19th century is an example of humanism in full flame. When the abolitionists were unable to find Biblical support for their cause, they simply concocted pseudo-Christian religious doctines for the holy war against slavery. One prominent abolitionist declared that if the Bible condoned slavery, then America needed a new religion. Abolitionists flouted Christianity by piously canonizing John Brown, a psychopathic mass murderer, as a saint. The superficial trappings of Christianity were all that humanism required to preach holy war against slavery. Universalism, Transcendentalism, Unitarianism and the other godless faiths practiced by abolitionists thrived as anti-slave congregations, but dwindled to near nothing by the 20th Century. Religion had fulfilled its purpose as a tool for manumission.

However, a glance at some illustrations from abolitionist publications gives insight into the liberal humanist mentality of the era. The mawkish scenes printed on posters, handbills, and journals usually depict a shackled negro in prayerful genuflection towards a beatific abolitionist, who extends a hand as if to liberate the slave by mere touch. Nothing better records the sanctimonious god complex of liberals than these old pictures. Modern liberals almost certainly envision themselves in a similar role.

Television is the tabernacle of contemporary liberalism; a sanctuary for liberal self-righteousness with an altar in every household. Through television, liberals can act out their holier-than-thous in the security of a closed studio. Any liberal fiction can be staged and broadcast worldwide, thereby obscuring truth behind illusion. Happy TV communities are models of liberal social engineering, while enemies of liberalism are one dimensional demons; vilified and cast out from the multicultural utopia.

During the civil rights movement, television news crews swarmed over the South to capture and orchestrate the images that would portray the marches, freedom rides, sit-ins, and other integrationist mischief as a righteous crusade. So what if many of the freedom riders were hired convicts, prostitutes and heroin addicts? Did it matter that Martin Luther King maintained close ties with Communists like Carl Braden and Hunter Pitts O'Dell, or that he was a profligate wretch?

Many black demonstrators, between verses of "We Shall Overcome", shouted obscenities at police officers, spit in their faces, and threw bags of feces at them. The television cameras closed appatures during these incidents to prevent a backlash against pending civil rights legislation. The liberal media gods allowed only scenes of police dogs and fire hoses tormenting the marching saints to become news. This news eventually became history, and the contrived history became gospel. The process is reincarnated every time liberals extend their sanctified hands to new disciples of victimhood.

If a god complex is the aggressive side of liberal self-righteousness, victimhood is the passive. When liberals encounter hostility, scorn, or rejection, the me-god recedes into self-martyrdom. Unlike the god-complex, which is crosswired to all liberals, martyrdom is personal; the one notable exception being the Holocaust martyrama. Liberals, therefore, never lose their divine self-righteousness, they simply transfer it from one neurotic state to another depending on circumstances. By switching back and forth from god to martyr, liberals are able to deftly maneuver their necessary fictions over and around opposition. The Right is forever entrenching truth, only the find that the liberals have planted their flag on the ramparts. The big mistake on the Right is to fight fire with fire by embracing some liberal ideals (the quest for civil rights, the Martin Luther King mythology, etc.) while battling liberalism over trifles like prayer in public schools and taxation.

The important thing to remember about liberalism is that it becomes more ruthless with each new success. Now that homosexuality has been legitimated, pederasty is next on the civil rights agenda. A recent book on the subject of child molestation by a crackpot female pshychologist suggests that child sexual abuse may be a healthy experience for kids! Slave reparations is another big liberal scheme, and is essentially a multi-trillion dollar exploitation of white guilt. Then there is Noel Ignatiev, the Harvard professor who has gained notariety for his campaign to exterminate "whiteness."

There is little to distinguish between neo-abolitionist Noel Ignatiev and John Brown. They both represent the continuum of godless humanism that has afflicted Christian Civilization since the French Revolution wrote "Brotherhood" and "Equality" in blood. Once liberals are all-powerful, they will resurrect the ghosts of Robespierre, Marat, John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, and Nicolai Lenin then draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. Ultimately, liberalism incubates into Bolshevism. The godless, multicultural, transgender paradise envisioned by bolshevist-liberalism sits atop a mass grave.

The obstacle to defeating liberalism is that liberal ideals have entered the mainstream. Though most people disagree with the bulk of liberal lifestyles, doctrines, and attitudes, there is no mass movement to overthrow liberal totalitarianism controlling mass media, academia, and popular culture. No unilateral effort has developed to equate liberalism with Bolshevism, though liberals are always quick to tarbaby conservatives as facists or nazis.

Normal people must isolate and challenge liberal attitudes before those attitudes become law. Many years ago, a famous man commented that he had nothing against negroes, but he didn't want his daughter marrying one. That man was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the phrase "I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one" became a popular comment on the civil rights movement and a shrill echo in the ears of liberals.

Quips, cliches, and slogans will not stop the long march of liberal totalitarianism. Modern liberalism must be recognized as Bolshevism and that multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion are camoflaged weapons of repression.

Imminent Return or Imminent Danger?

By James Brown Jr.

Over the years there has been much debate and talk about hate crimes, hate groups, and hate speech. I can first remember the discussions of this back in the 80’s by fundamentalist Christians because of the homosexual lobbyists demand for equal rights. Mostly, it was just lip service as seems to be paramount all throughout Christianity.

However, at the end of 2002, we are facing a real threat in this area. Though most Christians never really dreamed that during the Reagan years Christian beliefs would ever come to be regarded as “hate speech,” the fact is they have.

The evidence from our own legislatures and judicial system ought to be warning enough that we are following the rest of the world in the pagan agenda of stamping out “intolerance” and “hate.” Even the choir boy for the so-called Christian Right, George W. Bush, gives lip service to this newfound faith of tolerance and diversity.

As reported by Fox News on November 13, 2002, in Bush Embraces Islam as Peaceful Faith, Mr. Bush stated, “Ours is a country based upon tolerance...And we respect the faith and we welcome people of all faiths in America, and we're not going to let the war on terror or terrorists cause us to change our values.” Scripture comes to light where it says in Isaiah 5:20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

The foremost reason for this is silence and apathy in conservative Christian denominations. Some have became so ecumenical that they do not believe nor stand for anything, therefore, there is no thought that they would have to worry about “hate legislation.” Other more conservative churches have hid themselves hoping that if they ignore the world the world will ignore them. In both cases, however, the underlying problem is fear to stand for truth.

Until the church casts off this fear it shall continue to be victimized by the savage beast who continually seeks to violate the bride of Christ. The church should heed the advice that is given to women in taking precautionary measures and learning self-defense to keep themselves from being preyed upon . One thing the rapist is always looking for is an easy target and one that will not fight back too much.

The church has became such easy prey you wonder if they don’t really enjoy it. As unbelievable as it sounds there are some women who have been brought up in or found themselves in abusive environments where they actually develop a victims mentality. Some even think it should be the norm and respond in such a way to make you think they actually enjoy their role.

The modern church has became a conscientious objector in regards to her own protection and defending of the faith. What would they think of a woman who was living in perilous surroundings but took no action to keep herself from being abused by the neighborhood thugs. Yet, this is exactly what the church is doing. As a matter of fact, it is far worse, for the church voluntarily whores herself so that she might benefit from the neighborhood order. Yet, the result is the same. She is savagely violated and eventually, she will not be paid, yet she shall continue to be abused.

The answer is simple. They should overturn the neighborhood order. Of course you can just lay back and enjoy it if you are into to that sort of thing. However, our forefathers thought that it was better to die free than to live as a slave.

Just like the whore in the unrealistic movie Pretty Woman, the church finds itself waiting for a prince to come rescue her out of her environment of her own construction. Yet, Christ Himself prayed in John 17:15, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.”

The church came to this victim mentality that first began in America under the preaching of C.I. Scofield. Being brought up in the dispensational abuse of the Kingdom found in many churches has led to a worldview that embraces their role to be violated by the hands of those who seek to dominate our neighborhood. They are awaiting their Prince to come and save them when He has already came and done all to secure the liberty that is found in Him.

Two of the reasons for Christ’s first advent was made clear by Zacharias under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Luke 1:68-79:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

The deliver has already come to deliver His people. The command that has been left us is not to hide and await His return nor is it to appease the predators but to occupy till He comes. The word occupy according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary means “to take possession.” We are told in 1 John 5:4 that “...whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

We have been commanded to be overcomers. This is totally distinct from the defeatist world-view of many who have became so-called leaders in the church. They have presented us with an outlook which gives victory to “satan” and leaves us to retreat in defeat. The Priests have prophesied and the people love to have it so because it gives them what they want, a utopia void of any responsibility or effort.

The Bible as 'hate literature', a WorldNetDaily (WND) article on October 21, 2002, described the assault against the Kingdom of Christ in Canada. Most Christians may be surprised to hear that the Bible is being regarded as “hate literature” by our Northern neighbors. However, this is not just confined to Canada but is a global trend that is even being designed for America as well. This new order of global government is at war with Christ and seeks to destroy those whose allegiance is or could possibly be to the Kingdom of Christ.

Bill C-415 has been reintroduced in Canada where one could possibly face prison time for simply quoting the Bible. WND revealed that under this provision the following would become law:

The Bible, at least certain portions of the Bible, may be declared "hate literature."

Churches will not be able to mention certain Scriptures.

Clergy may be subjected to criminal charges if they refuse to marry homosexuals.

Parents may be subjected to criminal charges if they refuse to allow their children to attend classes that teach about and promote homosexual behavior.

Expressing disagreement with homosexual behavior or the homosexual agenda, either verbally or in writing, would be considered hate propaganda.

Educators, including those at private religious schools, will not be able to refuse to teach homosexual curriculum.

Religious institutions will not be allowed to teach anything non-supportive of homosexual sex.

Canadian Blood Services will not be allowed to screen risk-behavior donors.

Governments (including local municipalities) will be prevented from passing (even debating) sex standards laws.

This ought to strike fear into American Christians, not only because of the fate of many of our brethren there, but also because our country is following suit. Many uncompromising Christians have already been faced with this threat here in the “good old USA.”

With all the newly passed and proposed legislation regarding “hate groups” it should cause grave concern among Christians as to where this road is leading us. The church I pastor, Union Christian Church, was recently targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a hate group. Many law enforcement agencies receive their domestic intelligence from the SPLC. Should we not be concerned about the new federal powers under the Patriot Act being used against Bible-believing Christians?

On November 13, 2002 the BBC News reported in a piece entitled Hate crime police raid 150 homes that police raided 150 addresses and arrested at least 83 people in “hate crime” raids in London. Now most people see the term “hate crimes” and automatically think of people being beaten, murdered, or some act of violence being perpetrated on them because of their racial, sexual, or religious status. However, that is not the case. On March 20, 2001 the BBC also reported another similar raid in London resulting in about 100 arrests. Yet, the BBC reported this interesting fact about these “hate crime” raids. They reported that “alleged offences include racially aggravated death threats, harassment, the publication of racist or homophobic material, and assault.”

What makes this even more frightening is the definitions that are being developed concerning “racist” and “homophobic” literature. In Canada and Stratton Island New York the Bible has been identified as “hate literature.” In Martinsville, Indiana the Assistant Chief of Police came under heavy attack because of a letter he wrote as a private citizen to the local newspaper condemning homosexuality, multiculturalism, and pluralism from a Biblical standpoint. Only because many of the local citizens stood up for him he did not lose his job.

The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance has paved the way for the recent adoption of “anti-hate” and “tolerance” legislation in Europe. They proposed in 2000 that “appropriate and efficient measures are taken to combat racist organisations, as well as to criminalize oral, written, audio-visual and other forms of expression, inciting to hatred, discrimination or violence against targeted groups or persons because of their actual or presumed racial, ethnic or national origin or religion...”

No wonder they slander our forefathers as being racists. The Delaware Constitution of 1776 declared that every office holder in that state had to swear “I, ____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” Obviously, the Christian Republic our forefathers envisioned doesn’t fit the present picture.

Some might wonder how this could be construed as racism. Well, the European Commission followed it up by underlining “the importance of promoting understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to religion and belief. It recognises that religion and belief may be related to racial and ethnic origin and it may thus be difficult to provide comprehensive protection against discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin without also prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion and belief.”

These realities show the imminent danger that Christians are now facing because of our abdication of keeping dominion of the Christian nation that our forefathers died to entrust to us. Christians must repent of and return to the whole counsel of God if we are to see the return of God’s blessing on us again.

Sadly, however, most Christians have their heads in the clouds trying to escape the pain associated with their abdication of maintaining and building Christ’s Kingdom. Instead of worrying about when Christ will come back maybe we should be about our Father’s business. Then, when He does return, we will hear, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

James Brown Jr. is the pastor of Union Christian Church in Martinsville, Indiana. He also directs the Independent Christian Action Network which is a ministry of Union Christian Church. He has been married to his wife, Sonya, for ten years and they have six children. Their web address is [url]http://ican11.tripod.com[/url]. You can contact Pastor Brown at [email]jbrown@reliable-net.net[/email]

More News

confederate_commando

2004-03-30 12:06 | User Profile

Interesting, if only because it shows how bankrupt the term "conservative" has become. What is left to conserve? A defunct and meaningless scrap of paper that FedGov has only paid lip service to, at least since Ape Lincoln and really almost since its inception--remember the Alien & Sedition Act?

But, to claim that the founders were 90% Christian? Where's the proof? More Yankee Amerikan MYTH!!! Just because the grade-school lie (from the yankee/prussian/atheist/statist gubmint school systems introduced by Horace Mann to the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts!) is questioned by looking at original source material does NOT make it Revisionist. No facts are being changed, only checked for accuracy! From another discussion board I pulled this in a quick search:

[I] I've found many sites on the internet who claim that some of the founding fathers were not christians. Here is a collection of them I found on one site:

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance. From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." From: The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote: The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." From: The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature." From: Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian. From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.

I do not know myself how credible the sources are. God Bless, Imperfect[/I]

[url]http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000830;p=1[/url]

[B]More to the point, if the constitution is in any way a Christian Document, why is there absolutely NO reference to God, much less to Christ Jesus???[/B]

Ther is none, because it is a Humanist/Deist Compact--tolerable early on when Christians were a large segmnet of the populace, and even Diests gave lip-service to our Beliefs, but compare the Preambles of the Confederate Constitution and the Federal Compact of 1787:

[I]We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity -- invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God -- do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.[/I]

...and:

[I]We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/I]

Obviously,the Southerners of 1861 saw this flaw and made remedy for it.

No, the Federal constitution was an anti-Christian document resting on the Humanist/Deist notion that government rests on the consent of the governed, not as a given institute of God. The majority of States had had an established Religion (Christian as was understood of course), so if the Deists who devised the FedGov wanted it Christian, they could have at least mentioned the Almighty in the 'supreme' law of the land!

:nerd:

confederate_commando

2004-03-30 13:39 | User Profile

ALONG THE SAME TOPIC, WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPHS PRETTY INTERESTING TOO:

GARY DEMAR

Founder of American Vision

It is hard to go wrong with Gary DeMar, the founder of American Vision, an organization devoted to advancing a biblical worldview in all spheres of life. Not only has Gary DeMar written and published numerous books of his own through American Vision, he markets many other excellent titles through his monthly journal and website.

One of the videotapes produced by American Vision features Rev. Steve Wilkins (South) and Rev. Peter Marshall (North) in the "Great Civil War Debate". It is an excellent production. There is humor, there is intelligent discussion, and there is relevancy. The interaction of visual effects with the presentation does a great job of drawing even the most disinterested into the debate. American Vision does a great job of challenging the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the meaning of the War Between the States.

Rev. Wilkins does an excellent job of exposing the fallacies of the traditional "text book" interpretations of the Civil War which Peter Marshall attempts to "baptize". Yet Rev. Marshall does a good job with his perspective as well and the two have some great interaction. American Vision is to be commended for its perspective on the entire Civil War era.

Another area in which Gary DeMar & American Vision have produced excellent work is Bible prophecy. American Vision is among a handful of publishers responsible for the revival of historic Post-millennialism over the past 25 years or so. Debunking the simplistic and preposterous predictions of many so-called "prophecy experts" has been developed into an art form by Gary DeMar. Through American Vision, Gary DeMar has contributed mightily to the new optimism that is beginning to characterize young, Christian activists in America and indeed the world.

As you can discern from the above, we normally agree with 95% of what Gary DeMar & American Vision put out. We are fascinated with most of Gary DeMar's articles in the American Vision journal (Biblical Worldview) and we even sell a few of the American Vision prophecy materials on the Ismellarat.com website.

We hesitate to criticize Gary DeMar & American Vision were the issue not so fundamental to the interpretation of American history. American history is, of course, the field in which American Vision specializes and such a fundamental error cannot help but color all of their work. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to draw this problem to the attention of American Vision, in hopes that they will make the necessary revisions. The problem is highlighted in another debate audiocassette produced by American Vision that features Gary DeMar vs. Edward Tabash of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This was a radio debate hosted by station KBRT in Orange County, California on August 8, 2000. The question debated by Gary DeMar and Eddy Tabash is cast in the form of a question: "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" This audio stands in sharp contrast to the other Gary DeMar/American Vision productions mentioned above. Tabash, the atheist, clearly wins the debate. Here's why.

In presenting the American Vision perspective, Gary DeMar talks as if the states had no culpability whatsoever in creating the debacle of the U.S. Constitution: a supposedly religiously neutral federal government. Jesus said, "He that is not for me is against me." By this standard, the states clearly lined up against God with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and yet Gary DeMar assumes that had no repercussions for the states. Somehow the states can simply wash their hands of all guilt because they allegedly limited the power of the federal government and never relinquished their religious test oaths.

The religious test oaths incorporated into most of the state constitutions required an oath of allegiance to God before an elected official could assume public office. For example, this was the oath required of every public officeholder in the state of Delaware: "I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed forevermore and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration..." However, Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution forbids such an oath with these words: "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"Be not deceived...whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) The states created a political scandal, totally adrift from God, that denied Christ His rightful role as King of the nation, and then tried to shield themselves from the repercussions by supposedly giving it limited, delegated powers. Gary DeMar is deceiving himself by defending this as a "Christian nation." What difference would it make if they had only delegated one power to the Federal government or delegated 100 powers -- what they committed with that document was treason against the governing authority of God.

Rev. DeMar seems to think that by conceding this point he will open the floodgates to the barbarians. What Gary DeMar & American Vision fail to realize is that by failing to concede this point we open the floodgates to the judgment of God.

Gary DeMar seems to have forgotten that God deals covenantally with nations. The states covenanted together solely on the authority of "we the people", totally snubbing God, and outlawing a religious test oath requiring obedience to God. How can that possibly pass muster in the court of Heaven? How can Gary DeMar & American Vision tell us that that apostate sellout has no impact on the states, that the whole transaction somehow constituted a "Christian nation?" So what if they still had their religious test oaths; they had just turned their backs on God and prostituted themselves to the idol of pluralism. It was only a matter of time before their test oaths would also be casually brushed aside.

Had the United States been constituted as a Christian nation, the Constitution would have contained words similar to this Amendment to the Preamble proposed by the National Reform Association in 1864: "We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Gary DeMar acts as if a religious test oath is optional. It is as if he were saying, "Hey guys, we've got a pretty good Constitution drafted up here, whatdayathink, should we throw in a religious test oath, or not?" The fact that the Old Testament covenant oath was at the heart of God's relation with the nation of Israel seems to have evaded Rev. DeMar. It was taken originally by Moses, then retaken at various points of repentance throughout the nation's history (cf. Josh 24 & II Kings 23:3). As King Josiah began his great reform, we are told that "the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart...and all the people stood to the covenant." Gary DeMar & American Vision should know that God works through covenant oaths in family, church, and state, which is what makes Article VI such an outrage. The King of Assyria took a similar oath of repentance in Jonah 3:7, proving that this is also God's pattern for the Gentile nations.

When Gary DeMar asserts that the federal government can't apply a religious test, but "we the people certainly can", he is committing the "fallacy of definition". In other words, he switched definitions of "religious test." This phrase refers to the covenant that a civil magistrate enters into with God upon assumption of public office. Rev. DeMar has changed the meaning to an evaluative criteria that voters apply to a candidate for public office, assuming that nobody would notice. That's not permissible in debate.

Tabash is right. Gary DeMar & American Vision talk "strict construction" when it suits them and revert to historical revisionism - a la Justice Joseph Story - when it doesn't. Story, a supreme court justice and founder of Harvard law school, stated that "...the real object of the 1st Amendment is not to countenance -- much less to advance Islam, or Judaism, or infidelity -- but to exclude all rivalry among Christian denominations...It thus cut off the means of religious persecution...and of the suppression of the rights of conscience in matters of religion...."

But, how can Gary DeMar ignore Madison's plain, literal statements regarding the irrelevance of religion as a qualification for public office? Why do they let Story speak for Madison and ignore what Madison said for himself? That is the fallacy of "incompetent authority." It definitely removes Rev. DeMar & American Vision from the camp of the "strict constructionists" on the pivotal issue regarding the interpretation of American history.

Gary DeMar is surely aware of the Convention Debates and the Federalist Papers at least in part; isn't it obvious from these records that the framers were not hammering out Biblical principles of government? How can anybody who has even skimmed these documents make the audacious statement that "they were using the Bible as their great political textbook" or creating a Christian nation? They scarcely even refer to Scripture in hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes. And as Tabash noted repeatedly, Madison makes it very clear in the Federalist Papers that he did not think religion should have anything to do with qualifications for public office. Gary DeMar & American Vision actually quoted historian Thomas Cumming Hall in "Biblical Worldview" a few years back as saying, "The 18th century conception of Greco-Roman Paganism has completely supplanted Puritanical Judaism" in the Federalist Papers. But they now speak as if they had never read those words.

Contrary to Joseph Story, the following quotes from the Federalist make clear Madison's intent regarding the positive virtues of excluding religion from civil government:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points...we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control [for faction]." (Federalist #10)

"The door of this part of the federal government [House of Representatives] is open to merit of every description...and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith as a requisite for public office." (Federalist #52)

"Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment of disappoint the inclination of the people" (Federalist #57)

It would appear that Gary DeMar & American Vision have a choice. Are they going to be "strict constructionist" and stick with Madison's clearly stated intent regarding religion, or are they going to continue to revise history with Joseph Story?

In spite of their proclivity for religious language, it is common knowledge that most of the ringleaders among the founders were unitarian, denying the Divinity of Jesus: Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and most likely Washington. Gary DeMar is surely aware of books such as John Eidsmoe's "Christianity & the Constitution", which document this fact. On the other hand, Madison was very tight-lipped about where he really was at spiritually.

In the case of George Washington, his own pastor questioned the reality of Washington's faith. The book "George Washington & Religion" by Paul Boller explains how all the Washington myths got started through hearsay. Boller quotes Washington's Pastor (Abercrombie) during the 8 years of Washington's Presidency:

"That Washington was a professing Christian, is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."

Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming -- e.g., newspaper articles, paintings, personal letters, statuary all over the country (cf. [url]www.ismellarat.com[/url]) -- that Washington was a high level Freemason. Freemasonry is, and was, a secret organization requiring adherents to swear to many anti-Christian oaths. Of course, this is seemingly in contrast to all the founder's public utterances about religion, which make the Christians' hearts go "pitter-patter". Books have been filled with these quotes, but they fail to get down to the bedrock of the framers' actual worldview. Gary DeMar & American Vision have forgotten that religious language may be laden with connotations that mean something entirely different for a believer and an unbeliever. Thus, they have been led astray.

Gary DeMar knows how to deal with this "God talk" when it comes to the church. There are churches all over America that claim to be Christian. They talk a good game: They pray, they administer sacraments, they make religious pronouncements and they refer to the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Gary DeMar can smell them out as phonies in an instant; he knows how to cut to the chase and find out where they actually stand with Christ. Why is it that he is so "star struck" when it comes to our unitarian framers and can't seem to separate religious jargon from religious commitment?

How can God possibly bless our efforts at reform if we insist on defending this covenant-breaking indignation? A clique of unitarian lawyers blatantly broke covenant with God and for 200+ years the Christians fawn over them and defend them seemingly to the death. The magnitude of this self-deception is staggering. Why do Gary DeMar & American Vision insist on riding this lame horse?

It is clear to any historically informed observer that Tabash had the upper hand in the first hour of the debate before the moderator dragged him off topic. He marshaled quote after quote to demonstrate that what he was saying about Madison, the principle architect, is true. The moderator, a Christian, became so frustrated hearing facts contrary to his presuppositions that he finally had to resort to verbal abuse and "strong arm" Tabash into silence. It was not exactly a neutral debate format.

As Tabash protests repeatedly, Gary DeMar is arguing all around the subject: "Did the framers in 1788 create a Christian government?" Rev. DeMar insists on arguing that governments they created earlier are Christian governments. In debate parlance this is known as the "fallacy of the irrelevant thesis", or a red herring.

By technically playing with semantics it may be possible for Gary DeMar to assert that America remained a Christian nation in 1788. This would be in the same sense that Israel remained a "Christian" nation under Ahab. But like Israel at that time, the covenant had been grossly violated and needed to be renewed by retaking the religious test oath, as with Josiah in II Kings 23:3. Gary DeMar & American Vision have failed to grasp the fact that our framers made such an act of corporate repentance illegal in Article VI, Section 3.

Would the founders be shocked by what is going on today? Probably, but they shouldn't be; it's the logical outworking of their rejection of Christ as King of the nation in 1788. What else would we expect? Ideas (and actions) have consequences. They sowed to the wind and we their posterity are reaping the whirlwind.

The American Vision position on this critical question does not line up at all with Gary DeMar's normally astute historical judgment. Gary DeMar & American Vision defend the Constitution with almost the same tenacity as the Bible. As Christians we need to have the humility to admit that Eddy Tabash is right and Madison was wrong. We must not fail to adopt the Biblical position on the civil covenant and religious test oath so God can begin to bless our efforts to reform America.

[url]http://www.ismellarat.com/contemporary.asp[/url]

:saddam:

Angler

2004-03-30 15:21 | User Profile

No, the Federal constitution was an anti-Christian document resting on the Humanist/Deist notion that government rests on the consent of the governed, not as a given institute of God. You're right that the Federal constitution has its roots in Deism, but I certainly wouldn't call it "anti-Christian." If it were anti-Christian, it would say something like, "Christian worship shall be forbidden in this union."

My friend, the right to govern does rest on the consent of the governed. The days of the "divine right of kings" are long gone. Before I will accept that God has granted any man authority over me, I will require absolute, undeniable proof of that claim. It's just like someone demanding that I turn over all of my savings and assets "because God demands it" (sounds like something Robert Tilton would do). Sure, I'll send him all my money and property -- just as soon as he sends me the proof that God wants me to do so. Otherwise, why the hell should I believe that person? And I value my freedom far more than my property or even my life.

The authors of the US constitution felt that people have the right to worship as they choose, depending on what they believe in. That's the only sensible approach to religion, anyway. It's not possible to force somebody to sincerely believe in any religion, and to attempt to do so is tantamount to admitting that one's beliefs are indefensible.

The majority of States had had an established Religion (Christian as was understood of course), so if the Deists who devised the FedGov wanted it Christian, they could have at least mentioned the Almighty in the 'supreme' law of the land! I think the solution to many of the problems and much of the discontent in the US today is to divide the country into essentially independent states, just as was originally intended. Let the Christians who want to live in an officially Christian state have such a state (or more than one if the numbers make it necessary); let the White Nationalists have their own state; let the libertarians have theirs; even let the socialist Democrats have their own state(s). The states could trade with each other as they saw fit, and they would band together whenever necessary for purposes of defense. Apart from those two exceptions, the states would be independent, with their own constitutions and so forth. This is really not too different from what the US was meant to be. The idea is to let like-minded people group together without stepping on the toes of those they disagree with.