The Foundation Forum

Good News from Oklahoma

2009-09-29T09:55:00.001-07:00

I periodically get emails from David Barton's group Wallbuilders, and this morning I was pleasantly surprised to find such an email in my inbox.

It concerns a state representative from Oklahoma named Sarah Kern. Probably never heard of her on the "fair-and-balanced" Fox News Channel. If you did, it probably wasn't very positive (or extensive) coverage. Well, she recently drew up the "Oklahoma Citizens' Proclamation of Morality," which is also in national form, and can be signed by Americans everywhere.

I am encouraged to see this proclamation. I am heartened by the fact that someone in a place of public trust is openly recognizing that private moral conduct is essential to the survival of our nation. I am heartened that there is a growing realization amongst our Christian brethren in this country that repentance, and not legislation and lawsuits, is what is needed in this country. I am hopeful that more and more of us will become truly convicted, not only where the sins of abortion, sodomy, and others are concerned, but with the general permissiveness of evil that has pervaded our churches. May we repent of our disrespect for God and His law, and may we who teach righteousness to others, exhort ourselves also (Romans 2).

Here is the proclamation in full, taken from Kern's website:

We the People of Oklahoma, Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of Liberty; to secure just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.

WHEREAS, “It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by Religion and Morality” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government…but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” (James Madison); and

WHEREAS, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God (Benjamin Franklin); and

WHEREAS, “God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God” (Thomas Jefferson); and

WHEREAS, “Whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state” (Joseph Story); and

WHEREAS, “We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the people…the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion” (Roger Sherman); and

WHEREAS, “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians” (Patrick Henry); and

WHEREAS, “When you…exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to choose just men who will rule in the fear of God” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, “The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the Creator of the Universe; and

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord,” and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

Signed on the second day of July in the year of our Lord Christ Two Thousand and Nine.

Documentation for Founder's Quotes

John Adams. Quote 1. June 21, 1776. Charles Francis Adams (son of John Q. Adams and grandson of
John Adams), ed., The Works of John Adams—Second President of the United States (Boston:
Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX p. 401

Quote 2. October 11, 1798, in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts. Charles Francis Adams, ed. IBID pp. 228-229.

Quote 3. IBID, p. 229.

James Madison. Quotation attributed to him in 1778 by numerous authors. Fredrick Nymeyer, Progress Calvinism (January 1958), Vol 4 p. 31 is one such author.
This quote is in line with the beliefs of Madison as given in documented statements by him. Also, his appointment of Joseph Story to the Supreme Court in 1811, who wrote two commentaries on the Constitution support Madison's statement. In 1829 Justice Story explained in a speech at Harvard that “there never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation.” He, also, wrote in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. III in 1833 that “Christianity...is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public.” These statements and many others verify Madison's belief in Christian principles as presidents always seek to appoint Supreme Court justices who reflect their beliefs and views.

Benjamin Franklin. William S. Pfaff, ed., Maxims & Morals of Benjamin Franklin (New Orleans: Searcy and Pfaff, Ltd, 1927)

Thomas Jefferson. 1781, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, 1782, p. 237

Joseph Story. 1833. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted NY: Da Capo Press, 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec 1868, and p. 727, Sec 1869.

Roger Sherman. February 1776, in a directive for the embassy to Canada. Christopher Collier, Roger Sherman's Connecticut (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1979), p. 129.

Patrick Henry. Attributed. Steve C. Dawson, God's Providence in America's History (Rancho Cordova, CA. Steve C. Dawson, 1988), Vol I, p. 5. This statement, like Madison's is completely in line with documented statements of Henry.

Noah Webster. Quote 1. 1832. History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 307-308, paragraph 49.

Quote 2. 1833. Noah Webster translated Common Version of the Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, with Amendments of the Language (1833), p. 160.

If you are not from Oklahoma, and would like to support this petition, go here.
If you are a citizen of Oklahoma, support Representative Kern's petition here.

Here is Mrs. Kern on her proclamation:

An Important Perspective on September 11

2009-05-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

An important message from Jonathan Cahn of Hope of the World Ministries, on Sid Roth's radio broadcast, concerning the events and historical perspective of September 11.

Why Homeschool?

2009-02-02T20:00:00.000-08:00

(I promise to post Part 4 of my series on the Founders and the Illuminati soon. If you think we've discovered much so far, believe me, we've only scratched the surface!)

I found this video by accident on GodTube. It's a great video, promoting the mission of Exodus Mandate, a Christian ministry focused on campaigning to remove as many of America's Christian children from the government-controlled public schools as possible. Visit their website at:

www.exodusmandate.org

Commemorating the Inauguration of Barack Obama

2009-01-21T11:29:00.000-08:00

Do you mind if I roll my rant for a minute? I will anyway. Please bear with me for just a moment....

America is priding itself right now that we have just elected our first African-American President. We are saying that the ballots of this country have proven that American voters are "colorblind." Republicans and Democrats alike seem to be pleased at least this much with the results of the election.

However, both statements are false. Obama is not an African-American President, at least not where are Constitution is concerned. Our Constitution is very explicit in stating that only natural-born citizens are eligible for Presidential office. And Obama does not qualify.

The second statement is false fundamentally. While some may have voted for Obama, many seemed to support him and vote for him because he is black. That is not colorblind election. That is anti-racism gone to the extreme. Just because someone is in a "minority" group does not mean that he is fit for every position he seeks for himself. I think that Obama has shown himself to be clearly wrong on certain issues, and extremely dangerous on others.

I have nothing against blacks, or Hispanics, or any other group, but if we are really going to follow the advice of Martin Luther King, Jr., we should judge Obama by his character, and not his color. But we did not do that. Many who did not support Obama felt pressure from the media not to voice their opposition, because of the accusations that would immediately be made, that they were racist. And in America, you can be a druggy, an abortionist, a theif, and a perv, but don't you dare be a racist -- or at least, not a white supremacist.

Well, in spite of the fact that the man I disagree with has now entered the White House, I will commemorate that event anyway -- just not in the same namby-pamby manner as our politicians do, as if they had no principle but power to stand on.

Gotta love these gems from LibertyStickers.com:

Oh, and finally ...

Merry Christmas ...

2008-12-24T17:09:00.000-08:00

to all our wonderful politicians in New York and in D.C. From the patriots to you:

Image from In God We Trust

The Real Story of the Founding Fathers and the Illuminati, Part 3

2008-12-15T21:15:00.000-08:00

Who was the one Founding Father who defended the Illuminati, its founder, and its propaganda? And why did he defend them?

We left off in our last installment discussing the general reaction of the Founding Fathers towards the Illuminati, and/or their philosophy and principles. We also took a look at how the Founders reacted to the French Revolution and the ideals which propelled it, and how it illustrates that their views were not synonymous with those of the Illuminati, and that they were not acting in concert with that organization.

As promised, we shall examine how one Founding Father differed from the rest in this very important aspect. While he was only one man, he held prominence in the nation at that time, and to this day, his name and words are considered to be authoritative. His aura has now overshadowed the names and words of other Founding Fathers, more worthy of the veneration and consideration of Americans. Therefore, his ideals and opinions, which led him, not surprisingly, to sympathize with the Illuminati, the French Jacobins, or at least view them as well-intentioned or harmless, was a major force behind the fierce political divisions in our early political history.

The name of this Founder, was Thomas Jefferson.

Instead of lamenting the influence that the Illuminati had on the nations of Europe and America, and viewing its doctrines as dangerous, Thomas Jefferson defended Weishaupt and the Illuminati as trying to advance the cause of human liberty and equality. Jefferson wrote in the year 1800:

Wishaupt [sic] seems to me to be an enthusiastic philanthropist. He is among those (as you know the excellent [Richard] Price and [Joseph] Priestly [deists who claimed to be Christians] also are) who believe in the indefinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, and of course to render political government useless. ...
Wishaupt believes that this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. ... The means he [Weishaupt] proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are “to enlighten men, to correct their morals & inspire them with benevolence. ...”

As Wishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot of priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. This has given an air of mystery to his views, ... & is the color for the ravings against him of Robinson [sic], [Abbe] Barruel, & [Rev. Jedediah] Morse, whose real fears are that the craft [of ecclesiastical tyranny] would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men. (17)

Instead of believing that Illuminist propaganda was threatening liberty and society, Jefferson accused those writers who were exposing the Illuminati in books and sermons of being the true conspirators against human liberty, insinuating that they were either paranoid, or trying to discredit those who were "truly" proclaiming human freedom. Jefferson further accused these anti-Illuminist writers of being “ecclesiastical and monarchical” -- in other words, of being prejudiced in favor of an aristocratic hierarchy on the levels of church and state and biased against democracy and equality. He explained:

I have lately by accident got a sight of a single volume (the 3d.) of the Abbe Barruel's Antisocial conspiracy, which gives me the first idea I ever had of what is meant by the Illuminatism against which 'illuminate [sic] Morse' as he is now called, & his ecclesiastical and monarchical associates have been making such hue and cry. Barruel's own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a Bedlamite. But he quotes largely from Weishaupt whom he considers the founder of what he calls the order. As you may not have had an opportunity of forming a judgment of this cry of 'mad dog' which has been raised against his doctrines, I will give you the idea I have formed ...

However, in spite of his warm accusations of those who exposed the Illuminati, Jefferson admitted the fact that he was rather new to the subject. He had made up his mind that the Illuminati was wrongly accused by those who wished to insure the triumph of monarchy and a church-state, after spending a mere hour reading quotations of Weishaupt from Barruel's book, “which,” Jefferson said, “you may be sure are not the most favorable.” [So what?? If they are Weishaupt's writings, who cares if they are "favorable" or not? He wrote them! Isn't that proof enough? Sir, why are you so biased in favor of this man?] Several of these quotations of Weishaupt presented by Barruel will be examined later. But Jefferson was convinced of the rightness of his opinions in spite of the newness of the subject to him. Jefferson explained away Weishaupt's use of secret societies and mystical rituals by arguing that freedom of speech and press were suppressed in Germany. Jefferson further explained:

I believe you will think with me that if Wishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to make men wise & virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose. As [William] Godwin, if he had written in Germany, might probably have thought secrecy & mysticism prudent.

William Godwin was another deist philosopher and writer from Europe. He was "an English writer and radical political philosopher, published An Enquiry [sic] concerning Political Justice and its influence on general virtue and happiness, 2 vols. (London, 1793), in which he expounded his philosophy of anarchism. He believed that society should be based on reason and urged that such institutions as government, marriage, and social classes be abolished." (18)

Thomas Jefferson's sympathy of the Illuminati comes as no surprise when one realizes that his writings maintain the same religious, philosophical, and political tenets he ascribed to the Illuminati. Jefferson, and, as we shall see, Weishaupt believed, or at least taught, that Jesus was a mere man, whose mission was not to save mankind from sin, but rather to teach men how to be moral and rational. As Jefferson was previously quoted to say: “[Jesus'] intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves.” Jefferson's own writings prove that he himself whole-heartedly maintained this “natural religion”:

[I]t is not to be understood that I am with Him [Jesus] in all of His doctrines. I am a Materialist, he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin. I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it, &c. &c. ...
Among the sayings & discourses imputed to Him by his biographers [the writers of the Gospels], I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate [sic] the gold from the dross; restore to him the former & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters [sic], Paul was the great Coryphaeus. (19)

Jefferson also admitted his deism in a letter dated October 31, 1819 to William Short. Jefferson said:

As you say yourself, I too am an Epicurean. ... But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre [sic] from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man ...

Epictetus and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of duties and charities we owe to others. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist, and rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, ... is a desirable object, and one to which [Joseph] Priestly has successfully devoted his labors & learning. (20)

Among the doctrines which Jefferson attributed to Epicurus, and to which Jefferson apparently subscribed, were listed by Jefferson at the end of his letter to Short:

Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus. Physical. -- The Universe [is] eternal. ...Matter and Void alone [exist]. ... Gods, an order of beings next superior to man, enjoy their own sphere, their own felicities; but not meddling with the concerns of the scale of beings below them. ... Utility [is] the test of virtue.

At the end of the letter, Jefferson affixed a short list of what he considered the “artificial systems” of Christianity -- those which Jefferson claimed were not maintained by Jesus -- to be:

e. g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.

Of course, some of these tenets are indeed taught by the Scriptures; others are not, but are man-made institutions and tenets (such as the "corporeal presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, orders of Hierarchy, and the ultra-Calvinist interpretation of predestination).
However, Jefferson rejected what was clearly taught by the Scriptures, and by rejecting them accepted deism and unitarianism. Another letter to deist and unitarian theologian Joseph Priestly, written on April 9, 1803, demonstrates this clearly:

I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of the incorrectness of their [the Jews'] ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to a standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief in a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration [by God the Father]. (21)

The inevitable result of believing that true morality is ultimately discovered by reason and science, and that the quest for true morality must be completely unaided by revelation from God, leads men to believe that true morality can be possible apart from God. There is evidence in a letter that Jefferson penned to Thomas Law, on June 13, 1814, which suggests a growing trend toward this view in Jefferson's thinking. In this letter, he maintained that the love of God is not the ultimate essential to morality, because atheists claimed to be moral too. (22) Now, let me clarify my position here: atheists may do moral things, but those who fall under that description do so because they have "plagiarized" the morals that Christianity has established for the world around us. Many of those who have not had this cultural restraint have been guilty of the most ghastly barbarities the world has seen, because there is no God or God-concept to restrain them.

In conclusion, Jefferson clearly manifested a prejudice in favor of the Illuminati and its founder, but such is not surprising when one realizes that his ideology was akin to that which the Illuminati publicly propogated. As a result, Jefferson was an avid supporter of the French Revolution, which was the first major move of the Illuminists in overthrowing society. Whether or not Jefferson realized that the Illuminati was responsible or not is uncertain; but he probably would not have thought much of it. Through political and philosophical propaganda, the ideals of the French Revolution were brought to America, and much of the early political tumult in those early days of our constititional republic can be traced to the struggle between the Christian ideals of the American Revolution (which produced our constitutional federal republican form of government) and the humanist idealogy of the French Revolution.

Jefferson's support of the French Revolution, the connection between that Revolution and the Illuminati, the tumultuous conflict it produced in America, and the warnings of those who sounded the alarm will be explored in the next future posts.

Stay tuned!

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008-11-26T17:55:00.000-08:00

Wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving!

Adblock

(HT: New York Traveler)
I wish our American culture placed more emphasis on this celebration, than on Halloween, or even Christmas (if we want to celebrate the birthday of Christ, why don't we do it on the day He was born -- which was in the early spring -- rather than on the high day of the sun god?). Thanksgiving is a true American holiday, with its roots in one of America's earliest settlements, and in the faith and piety that made this nation great.

And on a lighter note, here is some ... historical background ... Enjoy!

Adblock

(HT: Freaky Frugalite)
Yes, even Hercules Mulligan finds time to goof off (and no, I didn't make this movie)!

The Real Story of the Founders and the Illuminati, Part 2

2008-11-16T11:36:00.000-08:00

What was the philosophy of the Illuminati, and were the Founders co-conspirators? Exactly how did they respond to it?

We left off, in our last installment, discussing the argument, concerning the coinciding dates of the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Order of the Illuminati. We have proven that our Revolution had no direct connection to the Illuminati or its agenda. We left off with the statement by Dr. John Robison (1798) that the Illuminati wished to promote and spread Deism. But the definition of deism seems to be rather obscure, as most people do not openly classify themselves as Deists, although the belief system seems to be considerably rampant in the western world today.

Deism acknowledges the existence of a creator of the world; however, it denies supernatural revelation, and therefore, it denies the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible and the Gospel. Deism has been associated with the term “natural religion,” because deism seeks to replace the authority of divine revelation (chiefly the Scriptures) with natural science, reason, and philosophy. Deism believes that if man relies upon his reason, guided by the study of nature, than he will be a moral and virtuous creature, acceptable in God's sight.

This basic tenet of deism is obviously opposed to that of the Christian Gospel, which maintains that man does not have enough goodness in himself to make himself moral or acceptable to God, but must rely upon the atonement of Jesus Christ for justification and salvation from sin.

Ethan Allen, in delineating the doctrine of deism, authored a treatise on deism, which bears as its title the practical motto of the deist: "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man." He explained clearly what deism maintains:

As far as we understand nature, we are become acquainted with the character of God, for the knowledge of nature is the revelation of God. ... But as certain as God is perfect in wisdom and goodness, natural religion is sufficient and complete; and having had the divine approbation, and naturally resulted from a rational nature, is as universally promulgated to mankind as reason itself. ... But that God should have given a revelation of his will to mankind, as his law, and to be continued to the latest posterity as such, which is promised to be above the capacity of their understanding, is ... impossible. (7)

Of course, it is the logical outcome of deism to deny the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ as the Atoner, since deism denies the ultimate depravity of human nature, as well as the intervention of God in human affairs. Allen's pamphlet maintains this denial as the belief of all deists. (8) As we shall soon examine, our Founding Fathers explained that deism was a far to feeble foundation for our Constitution and form of government; they explained that only Christianity would suffice to support our republic.

It must, however, be observed that although deism was the bait which the Illuminati would delude minds and attract followers, the ultimate intention of the Illuminati was to draw men to atheism, which is an even further departure from the Gospel and from the foundation of American government. Robison wrote:

[T]his [deism] is the doctrine that is to be swallowed by the Minervals of Illuminati Minores, to whom it is not yet safe to disclose the grand secret, that there is no such superintendance [sic] of Deity. ... By this time he [the beginning member of the Illuminati] must have heard much about superstition, and how men's minds have been dazzled by this splendid picture of a Providence and a moral government of the universe. It now appears incompatible with the great Object of the Order, the principles of universal liberty and equality – it is therefore rejected without farther examination, for this reason alone. This was precisely the argument used in France [during its bloody revolution] rejecting revealed religion. (9)

Because the Illuminati stood in such opposition to the principles upon which the Founding Fathers framed our nation, when the Founders observed the doctrines of the Illuminati being advanced through secret societies such as the Masonic Lodge, and through the horrific revolution which exploded in France, they harshly denounced either the Illuminati, its principles, or both at the same time. They were appalled at the boldness of infidels to propagate their ridiculous and destructive tenets, and were equally appalled at the watershed of brazen infidelity and immorality which ensued. Robison, again describing the Illuminati, wrote:

The Order was said to abjure Christianity, and to refuse admission into the higher degrees to all who adhered to any of the three confessions. Sensual pleasures were restored to the rank they held in the Epicurean philosophy. Self-murder was justified on stoical principles. In the lodges death was declared an eternal sleep; patriotism and loyalty were called narrow-minded prejudices ... (10)

Of all the denunciations made by the Founding Fathers about the Illuminati, Alexander Hamilton's were especially harsh. He did not name the Illuminati itself, but his words would have left no doubt in the minds of his readers that he was obviously decrying the principles and efforts of the Illuminati, as manifested in the French Revolution. He declared:

In reviewing the disgusting spectacle of the French Revolution, it is difficult to avert the eye entirely from those features of it which betray a plan to disorganize the human mind itself, as well as to undermine the venerable pillars that support the edifice of civilized society. The attempt of the rulers of a nation to destroy all religious opinion, and to pervert a whole nation to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy reserved to consummate the infamy of the unprincipled reformers of France. ...

The inscriptions by the public authority, affirming death to be an eternal sleep, witness the desire to discredit the belief of the immortality of the soul. The open profession of atheism in the convention [of France], received with acclamations; the honorable mention on its journals of a book professing to prove the nothingness of all religion; ... the congratulatory reception of impious children appearing in the hall of the convention to lisp blasphemy against the King of kings, are among the most dreadful proofs of a conspiracy to establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity.” (11)

In a public speech, Gouverneur Morris, another Founding Father, mocked one of the most fundamental tenets of the Illuminati: the ability of man to perfect his own nature. Morris claimed that Jefferson, a sympathizer of the French Revolution, maintained these principles himself. Morris declared:

[F]or his [Jefferson's] faith, it is not a grain of mustard; but the full size of a pumpkin, so that while men of mustard-seed faith can only move mountains, he finds no difficulty in swallowing them. He believes, for instance, in the perfectability [sic] of man, the wisdom of mobs, and the moderation of Jacobins [radical French revolutionaries maintaining atheistic or deistic tenets]. (12)

John Adams also showed concern over the growing influence of the religious and political tenets of Illuminism with the common people of Europe, and even of America. He wrote to his wife:

I fear the Atheistical and Theistical Philosophers lately turned Politicians, will drive the common People into Receptacles of Visionaries, Enluminees, illuminees, &c. &c. For the People will undoubtedly insist upon the Risque [sic] of being damned rather than give up the hope of being saved in a future state. The People will have a Life to come, and so will I. (13)

Benjamin Rush, another Founder, expressed his concern over the growing influence of deism in America. He maintained that such influence would attack the roots of American society and government. He wrote:

I fear all our attempts to produce political happiness by the solitary influence of human reason will be as fruitless as the search for the philosopher's stone. It seems to be reserved to Christianity alone to produce universal, moral, political, and physical happiness. Reason produces, it is true, great and popular truths, but it affords motives to feeble to induce mankind to act agreeably to them. ... I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism, and atheism prevail in the world. New England may escape the storm which impends our globe, but, ... it will only be by adhering to the religious principles ... of the first settlers of that country [the Pilgrims]. (14)

But perhaps the most succinct declamations of the Illuminati itself came from the pen of George Washington, not long after he had resigned from the presidency. He wrote two letters to a concerned German immigrant to America, harshly denouncing the Illuminati, and expressing his own concern about its influence upon America. In the first of these letters, Washington wrote:

Mount Vernon, September 25, 1798. Sir: Many apologies are due to you ... for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book [Proofs of a Conspiracy, by John Robison] you had the goodness to send me.

I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me. ... I believe notwithstanding, that none of the [Masonic] Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. (15)

And in a second letter, Washington wrote:

Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798. Revd. Sir: ... It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country, had, as Societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first [the Illuminati], or the pernicious principles of the latter [of the Jacobins] (if indeed they are susceptible of seperation [sic]). That Individuals of them [Masonic lodges in the US] may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States [Citizen Genet], may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation [sic] of the People from their Government in view, is too evidence to be questioned. (16)

These views expressed by the Founders concerning rationalism and the Illuminati are not the views of a minority of them. Already, the views of distinguished individuals like Hamilton, Adams, and Washington have been solicited, and those of no-less important individuals like Morris or Rush have been presented. Indeed, it seems that nearly all the Founders who spoke out on this issue rejected rationalism, and denounced the Illuminati and the French Revolution.

However, there was ONE Founding Father whose views on this subject was directly opposite those of the rest of the Founders. In many ways, it was his position on this issue that brought such great turmoil to the early American political scene during and after Washington's presidency.

In the next installment, we will discover the identity of the Founder, and exactly what he had to say on the subject. We will also discover the effects of his beliefs and influence upon American politics and events during and after that time period. Stay tuned!

The Real Story of the Founding Fathers and the Illuminati, Part 1

2008-11-13T10:55:00.000-08:00

Were the Founding Fathers part of a vast conspiracy to create a New World Order?

Is the coinciding date of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the Order of the Illuminati no accident?

Believe it nor not, some people think so. The following is an excerpt of a paper I wrote, as a result of research on this subject that I performed during a two-year period. I performed this research, not because I found the claims of these conspiracy theorists compelling. I performed this research (1) because several people, who have become aware of a huge slide towards globalism in recent decades, have found these theories compelling, and (2) because the true story behind the many myths reveals how our American society commenced its downhill journey.

The day was August 2, 1776. Fifty-six American men stepped forward one by one to affix their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, for which they would willingly lay down their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.” It was this document and the men who forged it which inaugurated a long war and a new nation, based upon principles that had never before been the hallmark of any other nation in world history. New America was not to be governed by a supreme man or group of men, but was rather to be governed by law under which the people consented to govern themselves. America, by its unique form of government, has changed the face of modern civilization, and its Constitution and federal-republican form of government has been admired and copied, although somewhat imperfectly, in other parts of the world. But another incident occurred earlier that same year, which also was to change the face of modern philosophical thinking behind the scenes of world events. According to an exposé-writer on the Illuminati, on May 1, 1776, the Order of the Illuminati was officially initiated by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria, Germany, on May 1, 1776. (1)

Interestingly, the philosophy advanced by this order included the democratic ideals of liberty and equality. The goal of this society was to spread these ideas around the world, along with the ideals that supposedly made a pure democracy practical. In truth, however, the Illuminati was aiming to conquer the world with the false ideologies of radical humanism, and abolish all religious and civil institutions worldwide. To achieve this goal, they would covertly incite anarchical revolutions in nations, which would overthrow not only traditional governments, but also traditional morals and societal structure.

Could it have been that the Declaration of Independence, created the same year as the Illuminati came into being was actually an advancement of the dastardly goals of the Illuminati? Did not the American Revolution assert the right of the masses to abandon traditional values in exchange for a new secular-humanist philosophy? As plausible as this view of the American establishment may seem upon first glance of the two coinciding dates, the little-known truth is that the ideals of the Illuminati and those of the Founding Fathers were diametrically opposed to one another. The majority of the Founding Fathers dreaded the influence that the Illuminati might have upon America, and spent much time and effort to prevent and to discourage the American people from accepting its influence. In fact, much of the early political tumult in our republic among the Founding Fathers themselves can be traced to their efforts to defend this country from the pernicious doctrines of the Illuminati.

After nearly a century of revisionism, Americans have become rather confused about our true history. Twentieth-century revisionism has handed down to Americans a lie that America is a democracy, where the voice of the majority of the people reigns supreme over the dictates of government, law, or Christianity. Twentieth century revisionism has also led many Americans to believe that our Founding Fathers opposed Christianity and biblical principles. One writer, who maintains this error, stated:

The United States of America is not [built] upon Christian values. Most of our Founding Fathers were ... occultists. ... The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are all a farce and perhaps the greatest deception of all times. ... America has a 'Secret Destiny', which is not known to the average American people. This 'Secret Destiny' is a New World Order and a One World Government; a One World Religion, which is NOT Christianity ... The Founding Fathers knew about this Secret Destiny and supported it. (2)

This view, however, is erroneous for two major reasons. The first reason is that it is chronologically and mathematically impossible for the Illuminati to have planned American independence. American independence was already pending years before the Illuminati was even inaugurated. As aforementioned, the Illuminati was officially established on May 1, 1776. But recall that the Battle of Lexington, which was the final unofficial ignition of the American Revolutionary War, took place more than a year previous, on April 19, 1775. John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an early advocate of the separation of the American colonies from Britain, dated the beginning of the American Revolution and the move for national independence even further back. He said: “The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.” (3)

We can see, therefore, that at least a full decade and a half before the Order of the Illuminati was in existence, Americans were already seriously contemplating separating from Great Britain and forming their own government.

In addition to the fact that it is chronologically impossible for the Illuminati to have planned American independence, it is mathematically impossible for the Illuminati to have planned American independence is that the Founding Fathers could not have known that the Bavarian Illuminati even existed in time for the Declaration of Independence to be drafted, or for the measure of national independence to be proposed.

Again, since it is important to keep in mind, the Illuminati officially started on May 1, 1776. The Declaration of Independence was approved by Congress on July 4, 1776, as we all know. That means that one month (approximately four weeks) and three days after the Illuminati was formed, the Second Continental Congress officially declared American independence from Great Britain. If the Bavarian Illuminati, on the very day that they were initiated, had sent word, by ship of course, from Germany to America to tell any of their would-be allies that the Illuminati was now in existence, that message would have reached the shores of the United States by the end of the year 1776.

According to The Mariners' Museum: “In the 17th and 18th centuries, ... [t]he average voyage from England to Virginia took seven or eight weeks. Wind and the storms that form along the eastern seaboard often added another week or two to the trip.” (4) Obviously, Americans would not have known about the Illuminati until after the struggle for national independence was well under way.

In addition to the chronological and mathematical arguments standing formidably against the idea that our independence and therefore our government was part of an Illuminati conspiracy, is the fact that the ideologies of the Illuminati and those of America's Founding Fathers and founding principles stand in stark contrast to one another. As a matter of fact, the two ideologies are diametrically opposed to one another, and, as we shall investigate in the following pages, they wage an incessant and violent war against each other. Our Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that our founding documents were forged in the fundamental principles of Christianity. One of the most succinct statements which demonstrates this truth is the declaration made by John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, American patriot:

[T]he birth-day of the nation ... forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation[.] Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission on earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before? (5)

The Illuminati, on the other hand, opposed the Gospel of Christ, and offered deism, which was to eventually lead into atheism, as a substitute. As John Robison, who wrote a thorough exposé on the Illuminati, declared concerning that body:

He [Weishaupt] employs the Christian Religion, which he thinks a falsehood, and which he is afterwards to explode, as the mean for inviting Christians of every denomination, and gradually cajoling them, by clearing up their Christian doubts in succession, till he lands them in Deism. (6)

{In the next installment in this series, we will explore the philosophy of the Illuminati, and how the Founding Fathers reacted to that philosophy, and to the Illuminati's intentions. Stay tuned for Part 2!}

The Law of Liberty, Part 1

2008-10-03T20:49:00.000-07:00

What is Liberty?

I again make the promise to my readers that I shall continue to discuss and vindicate the Christian principles of America's founding. Right now, it requires much uninterrupted concentration, and laborious documentation and organization. That takes the kind of time that I do not have on my hands right now. However, I have recently found the opportunity to take the time to discuss the subject of liberty. Liberty was the recent theme of a fairly new blog meme I created, "Founding Fathers Quote Friday." Feel free to take five minutes out of every Friday morning, to stop and read some terrific selections from the Founding Father's own writings. Several bloggers have joined my simple meme, and if you have a blog, and know where to find sourced quotations from the Founders on themes such as liberty, virtue, law, role of government, human rights, and even humor, family, and the Bible, than feel free to leave a comment and let me know! I'll introduce you to the particulars of participating, and every first Thursday of every month, I'll let you know what the upcoming theme will be!

The ensuing discussion, which I plan to entitle "The Law of Liberty," has been in a large part inspired by the reflections which have come to my mind as I and other bloggers have tackled the subjects of liberty, and now virtue, as we participated in FFQF. Personally, my tendency is and always has been to ruminate on such mind-provoking subjects. It is for this reason that I "read slowly." It takes me long to complete books, or even heavy essays or articles, because I tend to mull on things, and ask so many questions. Readers of my blogs may perceive that writing is a way in which I help myself think through something, or present something that I have thought through, to other people. That's what my blogs are for. Indeed, it would do people a lot of good to disentangle themselves from the fleeting distractions of day-to-day life, to just sit down and think something worthwhile through.

But before this post gets too long before I've even started, let us now commence the discussion of liberty. In the following posts under this subject, we will be exploring such questions as:

What is liberty?
Why is liberty important, and how important is it?
Where does one find the balance between liberty and law?
Why is civil liberty a rare thing in the world?

In this first installment of this series "The Law of Liberty," we will first discuss and determine what liberty is. After all, if you are going to discuss a subject, you must first define it.

Liberty has already been given many definitions by many different people in all times, but perhaps the best definition of liberty was given by Lord Acton: "Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of doing what we ought." I think that this definition is extremely perceptive, because it goes beyond the slogans of those who use the name of liberty to create anarchy, and it gets right to the root of what makes liberty truly last.

Some may object to this definition, and say that perfect and total liberty is without any restraints whatsoever. The truth, however, shows that total liberty, in that sense of having no restraints, is not necessarily true liberty. To put it plainly, mankind has a depraved and fallen human nature, which means that he is self-centered by his very nature. Now, a society full of self-centered people never lasts very long, because often, the various interests of people conflict, and the good of society often requires that its citizens sacrifice their own interests and pleasures for the general benefit. This means that men, in some way or other, must be restrained from doing harm, motivated to do good, and his interests channeled in the direction of general benefit. Now, if man does not restrain himself and direct himself, he will be restrained and directed by the coercive force of government, and as the government sees fit to direct him. When it is the government that becomes the director of behavior in society, there is no true liberty, because all must submit to the government so that some semblance of order may be retained in society.

Now, in all of human history, all civilized, organized bodies of human society have had governments which have been a very important part in the process of making sure that society's members conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the order of society. The kinds of governments generally fall under two categories. The first category is autocracy. In that kind of a government, one man, or a few elite men, rule the country with basically absolute power. Of course, this kind of government is not at all a very safe depository for the enjoyment of the rights of the governed. However, most governments in the world and in world history, can be classified under this category. This fact seems strange to us in the free world, and yet while it is disturbing, it is important that we keep this thought in the back of our minds, as we progress in our discussion. It will be brought up later, and the answers to the questions it naturally raises, will be a key to the door of our major discoveries.

The second kind of government in which all types of government can be classified, is called (in a very general way) democracy. In this kind of a government, the people are at least given a say in their government, which say has considerable weight in the actual functioning of the government. In a pure democracy, the people (or more accurately, the majority) have absolute power. This kind of government has been rare in the world, and the successful forms of this kind of government have been even more scarce. This is a fact that must also be kept in mind as we progress in our study.

In all nations, whether under a free government or a tyrannical government, the same amount of order and restraint is needed. For the sake of clarifying my meaning, let me ask you to please note that government (i.e., the civil institution) itself is not restraint. It serves as a restraining power, in order to at least insure that the quota of restraint needed in society is fulfilled. Again, all nations and all societies of human beings need about the same basic amount of order in society in order to exist. Free countries don't need more or less order than restricted countries. The fundamental difference between those two kinds of countries is who does the restraining, and ultimately, who does the governing (one does not have to be a king or a member of a legislature to govern, in the sense that I am using the word here). Either the people establish such rules for their own conduct (such rules as are consistent with the preservation of order in society), or the government establishes its own rules, and forces the governed to keep those rules.

In the first situation, in which the people govern themselves in the true sense, there is liberty. As long as their conduct is virtuous and upright, they will have no need for the government to come in and coerce good behavior. The people are free to live their lives and mind their own business. They have no need of endless laws and regulations. They have no need for the government to spy on them, or transgress their privacy.

In the last situation, however, the people do not govern themselves, and need the government to do that for them. However, the nature of man is to accumulate as much power and wealth for himself as he can, when he gets the opportunity. Civil governments, when they are the ultimate ones holding the governed accountable, rather than the other way around, will use the power they have to amass for themselves more power and more wealth. This is what all governments in world history, including ours, has done, is doing, and will continue to do. Needless to say, there is no true civil liberty there.

We have now established the correct view of liberty. Liberty, if it is to be of any worth, must not be allowed to slip into excess, or else it dissolves into anarchy and chaos. If this does not totally destroy society from within, and utterly annihilate it, the only recourse is for the government, or some other political figure, to intervene as a savior and messiah, who will restore the order and tranquility much needed in society. Usually, people will willingly surrender their liberties in order to insure the sense of security, peace, and prosperity. Think about the next time those three words become the campaign cries of stumping politicians.

A long but thorough post on this subject, written by a young blogger, can be found here.

In my next installment, "The Law of Liberty, Part 2," will be discussed the balance between liberty and law. This subject has been a question of the ages, and our own Founding Fathers struggled with it. Some of them came up with slightly different solutions. So it is bound to be an interesting discussion!

Constitution Day

2008-09-17T08:58:00.000-07:00

Today is Constitution Day, the day that 39 of the 55 delegates who attended the Convention of 1787 signed the Constitution of the United States of America. It's preamble expounded its purpose:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure 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 would like to remind all our public servants in government of the words of Alexander Hamilton:

In my opinion the present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes – rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.

You can read the entire text of this amazing letter, it's history, and it's intent, on some previous posts I wrote here and here. It was in this letter that Hamilton proposed the Christian Constitutional Society, for the purpose of supporting the cause of Christianity, and the Constitution.

Also celebrating Constitution Day is the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization. Today happens to mark their first anniversary. They are celebrating the event in the lovely chapel of Hamilton College (Clinton, NY) with a lecture on Constitutional jurisprudence. The lecture is open to the public, so if you are in the local area of Clinton New York, be sure to attend!

The Alexander Hamilton Institute is a wonderful organization, dedicated to helping reclaim genuine higher education. I was honored to be present at their last big event, this past April.

But however you choose to go about the day, be sure to spend some time remembering and reflecting upon our constitutional foundations. They are a precious gift handed down to us by our forefathers. The struggle for liberty did not end with the white flag at Yorktown, or even with the last pen-stroke on the Constitution. It will never end. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

God bless America.

Did the Founders Mean What They Said? Part One

2008-08-21T10:47:00.001-07:00

While over the past three posts, we have examined the definition of "Christian nation" applicable in the American case, the biblical grounding for our Revolution, and the biblical slogan of our Revolution, we shall henceforth commence the study of whether or not our founding documents themselves are founded on biblical principles -- but first, a word from the men behind those documents.

I would, however, like to remind my readers, that the argument I have been advancing is not to prove that the Founders wanted a union between the organized church and the organized government. To further that kind of argument would be to further the harm of both the church and government, and as a result, the harm of the liberties of Americans.

The argument I am advancing is simply that the principles of our civil government, and the concepts which need to be ingrained in American society in order for free government to be sustained, ultimately come from the Bible. An essay by Kerry L. Morgan, explaining this concept can be read here. It is clear and concise, and well worth a read. If you would like to better understand this blog's approach to the issue, please read it. It is available through the website The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and is reprinted with permission.

Before we actually begin examining the documents themselves, we must examine the views of those who wrote them. What did they have to say about our identity? What did they have to say about the relationship of our political structure and philosophy to Christianity? And what did they have to say about the role of Christianity in our founding?

Let us therefore examine the words 1) of the Founding Fathers themselves, 2) of the early office-holders of America, 3) of precedent-setting court decisions, and 4) of the historians closest to the time of the Founders. In this post, we will see what the Founding Fathers themselves had to say.

Before I delve into a documentation of the Founders' words, I would like to begin by addressing some of the controversy over what they said. One of the quotations I and others have often used to illustrate the truth of the "Christian nation" claim, comes from a letter that John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson. Here is the quotation:

"And what were these general principles [upon which the Founders achieved independence]? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles." To Thomas Jefferson, 28 June, 1813 (The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles F. Adams; volume 10, pages 45-46 (emphasis original)

Now, let me address some of the controversy concerning this quote. I have presented this quotation from Adams in different places and times, and I have been accused of taking it out of its context, thus distorting the meaning of "the general principles of Christianity." Let me begin my rebuttal to that charge by saying first of all, that when you are putting something back "into its proper context," you must be careful that you do not read a meaning into or out of the text itself. Many times my accusers are guilty not only of the same error, but of trying so hard to explain the plaintext away, that they make the Founders say something that is totally absurd. This case, is a case in point. Here is the larger context of the above quotation:

"Who composed the army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestlyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants 'qui ne croyent rien [Protestants who believe nothing].' Very few, however, of the several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Chistianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty.

"Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the other the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could united, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles [upon which the Founders achieved independence]? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favore of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Fredric of Prussia, from Hume, Gibon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame."

First of all, we see that Adams emphasis of "general principles of Christianity" indicates that he is trying to make sure that his hearers (and readers) understood that he was saying that the principles of the Founding were principles upon which all denominations of Christians could agree upon -- the principles of Christianity were not just according to one denomination.

However, it would seem (and it does indeed seem to those who quote this section), that John Adams is saying that non-Christians (universalists, aryans, deists, atheists, etc.) also embrace the general principles of Christianity. That statement is utterly absurd! Atheists are on the opposite spectrum of the matter, because they reject belief in God. Anyone who knows anything should know that the existence of God is as general a principle of Christianity you can get! I think that John Adams knew that. But for some reason, these secularists don't get it.

Why then does Adams say that all his hearers could unite in the general principles of Christianity? Answer: he doesn't. Read the following carefully (I have added bold for clarity; italics are Adams'):

And what were these general principles [upon which the Founders achieved independence]? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.

He says that all those "sects" were united in the general principles of Christianity, and that all the young men were united in the general principles of English and American liberty. Atheists, deists, etc., were not considered Christian sects (of course), so they cannot be said to be united with Christians on the general principles of Christianity. In those days, the Founders and most Americans, used "sects" to refer to Christian denominations, unless the context showed otherwise. In this case, the context and plain common sense (i.e. those who consciously reject the basic teachings of the Bible cannot be said to hold on to the general principles of Christianity) suggest that Adams' reference to "sects" is limited to those of Christian denominations.

Adams also says that "all those young men" were united in the principles of English and American liberty, and that these principles had once united the different political parties in America. Adams is therefore saying that while only those of Christian denominations could agree on the general principles of Christianity (of course!), ALL those listening, Christians and non-Christians alike, could agree on the general principles of English and American liberty. Hence, the "general principles of Christianity" cannot be twisted to mean something else other than the general principles of Christianity.

However, keep in mind, that John Adams said that the principles of the Founding came from BOTH the general principles of Christianity, AND the general principles of English and American liberty. Based on what we have just seen, does the context of his letter destroy the "Christian nation" theory? No. Rather, it supports it. The general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty, go hand-in-hand in the American system, according to the Founding Father, John Adams.

In the following posts (when I find the leisure to write again), we will uncover more of the Founders' opinion on the Christian nation claim.

The Declaration of Dependence

2008-07-31T09:04:00.000-07:00

This is a slight diversion from my serious of posts on the "Christian nation" thesis. I would like to make all my readers aware of a unique opportunity made available to them by one of my favorite blogs, written by Stephen Palmer, a free-lance writer and author, who joined my Friends of Liberty blogroll some time ago. Mr. Palmer has drawn up a "Declaration of Dependence," based on the original Declaration of Independence, but as it applies to the situation of Americans today. Here is the preamble of the Declaration of Dependence:

In the course of human events, it has become necessary for our People to resurrect the Political Bands once established through Divine Inspiration, because we the People failed in our Duties to God and our fellowman, and assumed among the powers of earth rights without understanding corresponding Duties, and have believed that we were entitled to the fruits of another man’s labor, and have ignored the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Now, a decent respect to Those Who Have Gone Before requires that we Repent and repair our failing Union.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights that require the fulfillment of corresponding Duties and Responsibilities, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness—that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.

I heartily encourage you to read the full text.

But before you consider signing, I would like to give you a very solemn precautionary note. As was the case with our Founders, signing the Declaration was no show. It was a very serious and dangerous commitment. Before you sign, I would ask you to seriously consider the rules laid forth for becoming a member of my Friends of Liberty blogroll. In 1776, our Founders knew their commitment could cost them their lives, and more. Maybe a look at the signature of Stephen Hopkins would give you an idea of what they were feeling at that time. His reported words match his signature: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not!"(1)

Readers of my blog(s) know that it is my strong conviction that a return to our Constitutional form of government cannot alone save America. Freedom does not work unconditionally, because lasting freedom is not the natural course of nations or societies of men. Freedom must be continually preserved and maintained, not by waging wars in the name of democracy, or by voting for "conservatives," or by signing petitions to the government and our school boards. It must be maintained by virtue and morality on the part of the people. The standards of virtue and morality, that is, which are laid out in the Bible.

I would like to close with the some wise insight from the great American patriot, John Adams. Please, pay careful attention to the following:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies. You cannot, therefore, be more pleasantly or usefully employed than in the way of your profession, pulling down the strong-holds of Satan. This is not cant, but the real sentiment of my heart.
Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776

Part Three: The Motto of the American Revolution

2008-06-09T08:07:00.000-07:00

After an extended absence, I shall now briefly resume the discussion on the subject of whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation. After reviewing the definition of a Christian nation (and which definition applies in our case), and the biblical cause of our American Revolution, we shall now examine the motto of the American Revolution.

We know that the Revolution had many mottoes, such as "Don't Tread on Me," "Join or Die," and "Liberty or Death." These were all popular slogans that the Patriots would use to summarize their cause. But there was another motto, equally important, and yet greatly over-looked in our history books, and in the examination of the history of our Revolution:

NO KING BUT KING JESUS!

The significance of this Revolutionary slogan is more fully realized in light of some history of the phrase. The slogan itself seems to have been a takeoff of John 19:15, which records that when the chief priests of the Jews were presuring Pilate to crucify Jesus as a rebel to Rome, and Pilate replied, "Shall I crucify you King?" they replied, "We have no king but Caesar!" Matthew Henry (author of the famed Commentaries on the Bible, which were highly instrumental in the conversion of Rev. George Whitefield) turned the last cry around, to say, "No King but King Jesus!" Henry explained:

Away with them [fleshly lusts], away with them; crucify them, crucify them; for like Barnabas, they are robbers, they are murderers, they are enemies to our peace; we will not have them to reign over us; no, no, we know them to well; we have no king but Jesus. (1)

However, it was not during the American Revolution that this slogan, "No King but King Jesus" was used. It was the motto of the Fifth Monarchy Rebellion, which sought to rid England of her monarchy in the (failed) hopes that the millenium (the 1,00-year reign of Christ) would soon arrive. While their expectations may have been mistaken, nevertheless, their legacy of subjection to the commandments of Christ, rather than the commandments of an absolutist monarch, would be passed on to the Revolutionary generation of America. They explained:

It is every man's duty to SEARCH the scriptures for himself, to learn from them the mind of Christ, for his own salvation, and not to receive IMPLICITLY the doctrines which men teach, or the creed of the civil magistrate. The meanest [most humble or common] subject in the state subject in the state has as good a right to judge, in the matters of religion, for himself, as the prince on the throne. The civil magistrate has no MORE RIGHT to dictate a religious creed to his SUBJECTS, than they have a RIGHT to dictate a religious creed to HIM. By being placed at the head of the civil state, to give law to the subjects of the state, he is not therefore placed at the head of the church, to give law to the body of Christ. If he ever assumes this character and power, he transgresses the just limits of his authority, which is CIVIL, not RELIGIOUS; invades the dominions of ANOTHER prince; and arrogantly claims the power of giving laws to another community, that knows, and ought to know, NO king but Jesus. (emphasis original) (2)

Some preached sermons declaring this message (for instance, Rev. Henry Haggar's No King But Jesus: or The Walls of Tyrannie Razed, and the foundation of Monarchy discovered to the view of all that desire to see it, wherein is undeniably proved that no King is now the Lord's Annointed but Jesus, etc., etc., from 1652), (3) while others were brutally martyred (4).

However, the message was passed on through such religious groups as the Dissenters, Separatists, and Puritans, who came to American for the very purpose of seeing fulfilled in America what they could not accomplish in England. It is no coincidence that the hotbed of the Revolution was Puritan New England. However, as Mark Noll says in his Religion and American Politics,

Nor was New England altogether unique. As suggested by the example of a 1765 Philadelphia Presbyterian crowd calling, "No King but King Jesus" ... The fact that there were plenty of "secular" political treatises that never referred to the covenant, to Antichrist, or to the liberty of grace -- and, conversely, plenty of "religious" discourses that altogether ignored politics -- in no way undercuts this point. (5)

"No King but King Jesus" and similar phrases were similar cries among the Patriots. So strongly was this sentiment voiced, and from so early a time, that it was even brought up in a session of the British Parliament. On April 26, 1774, when the House of Commons was debating a bill concerning how the British government should regulate the government of Massachusetts,

Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of the letter, relative to the government of America, from a governor in America, to the board of trade, shewing that, at the most quiet times, the dispositions to oppose the laws of this country were strongly ingrafted in them, and that all their actions conveyed a spirit and wish for independence. If you ask an American who is his master? he will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ. I do believe it, and it is my firm opinion, that the opposition to the measures of the legislature of this country, is a determined prepossession of the idea of total independence. (6)

Sermons, such as the one by Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the True King and Head of Government (1778) were preached, and a song was written by the distinguished New-England musician and composer William Billings, called Independence. It's words read:

The states, O Lord, with songs of praise shall in Thy strength rejoice,
And blest with Thy salvation raise to Heav'n their cheerful voice.
To the King they shall sing Hallelujah.
Thy goodness and Thy tender care have all our fears destroy'd,
A covenant of peace Thou mad'st with us confirmed by Thy word,
A covenant Thou mad'st with us and seal'd it with Thy blood.
To the King they shall sing Hallelujah.
And all the continent shall sing: down with this earthly King,
No King but God.
To the King they shall sing Hallelujah.
And the continent shall sing: God is our rightful King, Hallelujah.
And the continent shall sing: God is our gracious King, Hallelujah.
They shall sing to the King, Hallelujah.
God is the King, Amen,
The Lord is His name, Amen. (7)

The American Revolution was not a religious movement per se. That is not what I am arguing. However, it was meant to advance certain social and political principles that were grounded in the Bible. The crucial point around which the argument of the Patriots hinged was the fact that law came from God, and not from man. This concept, a purely biblical one, was the concept upon which our government was founded. You can see the evidence for yourself here, on a post I wrote selecting writings of the Founders on this subject.

As we can see, the Revolution was not a movement to free man from the shackles of Christianity or government, but rather to free man from the bonds of un-scriptural political rule. The purpose of the American Revolution was not to establish equality among classes, races, or between the rulers and the ruled, nor was it started to advance a radical socialist agenda. The purpose of the American Revolution was to show to the world that societies can be both free and successful, but not unconditionally. For this reason, the Founders stressed virtue and morality and order, because they knew that only a "moral and religious people" could sustain a free form of government. (8)

As we continue our series of investigations, we will look into this more thoroughly. Stay tuned for information about the government that our Founding Fathers created after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War.

Stay Tuned!

2008-06-08T14:37:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers and Visitors of The Foundation Forum,

Obviously, I have not updated this blog in about two months now. But I do intend to keep this blog running. Hopefully these long periods of absence from blogging will come to an end (very soon), and I will posting on a fairly regular basis. I have not run out of things to write about; far from it! I would urge my readers to stay tuned for posts on the following subjects:

Christianity and the Constitution
Priorities in voting
Education at home and abroad
Comments on books, documentaries, etc.
And more!

In the mean time, I encourage my readers and visitors to browse through this blog's archives. I recently added post labels to this blog, to make navigation by subject easier for my readers. If you plan on continuing to read this blog, you may need to go back through some of these posts to get the "foundation" of my arguments and positions. Some past posts of interest include:

The Purpose of the U. S. Constitution
America's Form of Government
What Is a Principled Government, Anyway?
Let An Association Be Formed, Parts One and Two
Reason v. Revelation, Parts One and Two
Creationism: The Worldview of the Founding Fathers

I would also encourage anyone reading this to use their extra time to study the writings of the Founding Fathers. Volumes of their writings have been made available for free online. My blog The Founders' Bookshelf helps researchers find these databases without wasting tons of computer time searching for them with conventional search engines. I am adding new resources to this website regularly, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to leave a comment. Or if you have any questions or recommendations, again feel free to leave a comment. I will respond to them as soon as I can.

I would also recommend that my readers and visitors to study the Bible, which I believe, along with Noah Webster, is the foundation for good government, and which our Founders generally received their worldview from. Here are some websites about the Bible which I recommend:

E-Sword (download-able program of numerous Bible versions, with commentary and additional resources; Greek and Hebrew dictionary and words)
Lee Strobel's Website
Lee Strobel's Online Videos
Coral Ridge Ministries
Darkness to Light
Early Christian Writings (contains apocryphal works also, of contestable authority)
Biblos (search the Bible in several versions; read the original Greek and Hebrew online!)

I will update with another post in the very near future. In the mean time, check out my other blogs; I recently updated them! Happy reading! And remember, your feedback is more than welcome.

Mulligan's 8

2008-05-14T15:16:00.000-07:00

A new blogger friend of mine, Fida Abbott, tagged me about a week ago. I'm sorry, Fida, that it has taken me so long to respond to your tag! But thank you for tagging me. I welcome the invitation.

Here are the rules for the homework she assigned me:

1. Post the rules of the homework in your Blog (OK, I've done that)
2. Write 8 habits or the reality about yourself (choose randomly)
3. In the end of your writing, write 8 names of your friends who you want to do the same homework
4. Don't forget to tell them so they can read your posting of your homework so they can do the same thing easily
5. Smile as the sign of your satisfied after you are done

OK, now for step #2: Write 8 habits or the reality about yourself (choose randomly) :

1. I love to write, research, decorate, and design. That is why blogging is right up my alley. Blogging is the way I can not only write, do and present research, and creatively design and organize, but can make these things available on the Internet to be of benefit and enjoyment to others.

2. I love music. I mean, I love real music. I'm not much for contemporary ear-blasters, but I enjoy good Christian productions by Delirious, Hillsongs, Twila Paris, Mercy Me and Stephen Curtis Chapman. However, I have a particular fondness for classical/instrumental music. Bach, Beethoven, and Handel are some of my favorites. In the old days, people sure did know how to write music!

3. I love the outdoors. Though I tend to be somewhat sedentary because of my studies, too much of anything is not good for me. There is a time to study, and a time to simply enjoy the great outdoors. And since I live in beautiful central upstate New York, which is largely rural, that comes easily. I believe that the Mohawk Valley is truly one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. Ordinarily, there are no blizzards, no flash floods, no tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. Our only pestilence is taxation and constant oppression by politicians. But I am grateful for the life I have had here. It is certainly a much easier one than that of many other ordinary Americans.

4. I hope to write at least two books some day. I will probably write more, but I plan to write a book on Alexander Hamilton, whose writings I have studied for a period of several years. In fact, the name of "Hammy," and his words of wisdom and wit have become household sayings in my family, rivaling that of the oft-quoted Ben Franklin. The second book I plan to write is a biography of Samuel Kirkland, who is a local figure in my area of significant state and national importance. To my knowledge, he has no biography around today, and since I live in his old mission field, and near Hamilton College which he founded, I intent to take the matter into my own hands. I think that it is time that a native of the Mohawk Valley and life-long citizen of New York (whose ancestors were Kirkland's contemporaries) should see to it that his life and legacy do not go to waste. If I write any more books after those two, it will probably be something that goes along with the subject matter of this blog.

5. I like learning about people from different backgrounds and different countries. That is why I am friends with Fida Abbott, who grew up in Indonesia, and a reader (of the many) of KimC's entertaining and exciting blog, Life in a Shoe. It is nice to learn about them, how they live, how they think, and what is important to them. I hope that I will meet more people like that in the future.

6. I tend to be very quiet and thoughtful. I am not very expressive, and I am probably not much for company, especially with new people. I usually communicate rather poorly one-on-one, but I think I can communicate well through writing. I tend to be quiet and attentive in personal settings like group discussion or in a classroom, but I can be very interactive in written discussion. Again, blogging falls right into this niche of mine.

7. (*almost done!*) I am currently reading The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. I have been reading several books on the case concerning the truth of Christianity lately, and I think I will soon post on my blog Herculean Reflections my thoughts on my readings. I continue to study this subject and to study the Bible. I think that every Christian, especially in the free world, should make this study an important part of their life and their education.

8. I hope to visit another country someday (or the least I could wish for is to visit another state, which I've only done once in my life!). If I had to choose which country, I would probably choose Scotland. Several of my ancestors came from Scotland, and it is a country rich with history and natural beauty and grandeur. If I had another opportunity, I might visit a land where the events of the Bible took place. I guess I'd have to pack lots of sun lotion for that kind of a trip, though!

And now for step 3: In the end of your writing, write 8 names of your friends who you want to do the same homework.

Eight friends? OK, let's see...

1. Our Founding Truth
2. Rob Scott at The Hamiltonian Federalist Forum
3. Brian Tubbs at Defending Christianity
4. HH at Adventures in the life of Upstate New York (hasn't blogged in a while; maybe she won't mind this "homework"!)

I can't think of anyone else! I guess I really do not have great extensions over the "blogosphere" yet! Oh well.

What's step #4? Don't forget to tell them so they can read your posting of your homework so they can do the same thing easily.

OK, will do.

Step 5: Smile as the sign of your satisfied after you are done.

--> :) <--

See? I smiled. :)

Well, Fida, I hope that this post was satisfactory! I know I didn't tag exactly 8 people; sorry! Hopefully, if I ever get another tag, I will have more people to tag!

AHI Inaugural Colloquium on Gerrit Smith and George Fitzhugh

2008-05-08T18:09:00.000-07:00

Hello dear readers. Obviously, I have not been blogging for a while, but I trust I will resume within several weeks. Life during this part of the year is typically busy for me, as with other bloggers. Believe me, I am very far from running out of posts!

But in the mean time, I would like to share with my readers a four-part video series of the first day (er, evening) of the Inaugural Colloquium of the Alexander Hamilton Institute, which took place on April 10th, 2008, which is based in Clinton, New York. It was a great privilege and honor for me to attend this particular gathering, as a guest of Professor Robert Paquette, and to witness the workings of this new but wonderful organization directly. I will post more extensively on this event, but in the mean time, you may enjoy the following videos, and read a descriptive blog post by my blogger friend, Mrs. Mecomber, who also attended the event, and shot some beautiful photos.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 1 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 2 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 3 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 4 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

I am very much looking forward to reading the correspondence between Smith and Fitzhugh once it is published. This discussion sparked many questions, which ignited interest. Maybe I will blog on my reading of that too when it comes out (and when I attack the other numerous items on my reading list!)

You can learn more about the Alexander Hamilton Institute, the colloquium, and their past and upcoming events here. I have blogged about the founding of the Institute on another blog of mine here.

UPDATE: The audio sessions of the remainder of this colloquium (which lasted for several days) are now available in mp3 format at the website of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. I encourage my readers to listen to these stimulating discussions. I will blog about them more extensively later.

Thoughts on Theocracy and America

2008-01-27T19:52:00.001-08:00

In the debate surrounding the issue of America as a Christian nation, those opposing the Christian nation thesis, or those who desire a separation of the influence of Christians over the institutes of the state, have accused the "anti-separationists" (those who oppose the contemporary view of "separation of church and state" and advocate that the Founders established this nation as a Christian nation) of proposing a theocracy.

This term theocracy is indeed thrown around very often, so let us examine what it means, and how its real definition applies to the view of America that our Founding Fathers originally had in mind when they founded this country. Many people, when they think of "theocracy," probably remember the Catholic dominance over the kingdoms of medieval Europe. Others who have more knowledge of Biblical history will probably picture the government that the ancient Hebrews had when Moses led them out of Egypt. They will remember that he gave God's instructions, especially the Ten Commandments, to the Hebrews. Those skeptical of Christianity, and therefore of Christian pastors and leaders, would definitely be skeptical of such a government -- in which the clergy dominate the government of a nation, claiming to get their instructions from God, as political representatives of God on earth. Many people term such governments "theocracies," because they loosely fit into the mold of "a government by God" -- the literal definition of "theocracy."

I am skeptical of the justice of the Catholic dominance of Europe, not because I am skeptical of Christianity, but rather of the truth of the Catholics' claims that they were the mouthpieces of God. May I also point out that many in the so-called "Christian nation crowd" are also skeptical of such a government. We instead assert that this nation was founded upon Biblical presuppositions (that man is inherently selfish, and needs restraint; that law, which exists for the purpose of restraining man's selfish tendencies and preserving justice and order, must therefore come from a super-human source, namely GOD, the Creator).

Our government was founded upon the laws of God. Now, this does not mean that our Constitution is a direct enforcement of the Ten Commandments, but rather that in order for the form of government established by the Constitution to be preserved, the Ten Commandments must be respected and observed by the American populous. Our Founding Truth wrote two posts dealing with this subject concisely but thoroughly; I encourage my readers to peruse these articles.

But since our government is based upon God's laws, and they are recognized as supreme over man's laws, can we not say that America is, in the literal sense of the word, a "theocracy"? Since theocracy is the rule of God, and God's laws are the foundation of our government (remember that the Declaration of Independence appealed to the "laws of nature and of nature's God"), we are a government under God's law. God may not send a prophet, as he did in the Old Testament times, saying, "Thou shalt war on Such-and-such a nation," or "Thou shalt pass such-and-such a law," but we are a theocracy in the New Testament sense. In other words, God does not speak to us primarily in lighting bolts or in divine messengers (although He continues to do so from time to time), but rather, as the New Testament book of Hebrews explains:

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

And who is "His Son"? It is Jesus Christ, who, according to John 1:1&14 is "the Word of God ... [who] became flesh." This means that Jesus is the law of God manifested in human form, in the form not only of a person, but of a human being, because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. He walked the walk.

The summary of all this is that God does not need to give a long list of do's and don'ts, as He did in Old Testament times; the New Testament makes it clear that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, and that the New Covenant is in place. God freely gives to us of His Spirit when we are born again, so that we no longer have the natural inclination to sin and walk contrary to the law of God, but rather have the inclination to do what pleases Him and accords with His law, and such involves more than going to church and wearing Christian T-shirts -- it involves the development of a holy and virtuous lifestyle motivated by the love and fear of God.

Our Founding Fathers acknowledged their dependence upon this concept in their writings and in their speeches. First of all, they acknowledged the supremacy of God's law over any laws of man, and they recognized the importance of electing genuine Christians to office.

John Quincy Adams, the famed son of John and Abigail Adams, and the sixth President of the United States made it very clear that the Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of a government built upon Christian principles. In a public speech he made to commemorate the 61st anniversary of American Independence (July 4, 1837), he declared:

Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? ... Is it not, that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission on earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?" (1)

John Jay noted the importance of Christians being elected to office, as well that this nation was a "Christian nation," in a letter to John Murray, Jr., on October 12, 1816:

Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others ... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. [emphasis original] (2)

John Adams also wrote concerning the founding of America, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The GENERAL PRINCIPLES on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were those GENERAL PRINCIPLES? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects [the Roman Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, and Universalists] were united, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. (3)

The Founding Fathers believed that the laws of God were so vital that they believed that Americans should understand and respect them from their youth. Noah Webster was a Founding Father, who served as a soldier during the American Revolution, and who directly influenced the Constitution in some areas by writing letters to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and discussing issues with them outside of the Convention. His most well-known contribution to America was his authorship of the first American-English dictionary in 1828, which gave English words standardized American meaning and spelling. He was heavily involved in the education of youth, believing that education in American principles was vital to the survival of the new republic. He once wrote:

Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New testament, or, the Christian religion. (4)

Since our nation relies upon God's laws to preserve virtue, and since virtue is what makes republican government possible, the Founding Fathers stressed not only virtue, but the true source of virtue: Christianity. Benjamin Rush, who was a very influential Founder and active educator and social reformer wrote:

The only foundation for ... a Republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (5)

John Adams, during his presidency declared:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (6)

Alexander Hamilton, in preparing Washington's Farewell Address upon Washington's request, expressed this truth this way:

In all those dispositions which promote political happiness, religion and morality are essential props. In vain does he claim the praise of patriotism, who labors to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness.

Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?

’T is essentially true that virtue or morality is a main and necessary spring of popular or republican governments. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to all free governments. Who that is a prudent and sincere friend to them, can look with indifference on the ravages which are making in the foundation of the fabric—religion? The uncommon means which of late have been directed to this fatal end, seem to make it in a particular manner the duty of a retiring chief of a nation to warn his country against tasting of the poisonous draught [sic]. (7)

And George Washington expressed those words similarly in his revised version of the Farewell Address.

Alexander Hamilton had earlier written quite emphatically:

The politician who loves liberty ... knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism alone can curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original) (8)

Our nation is not a theocracy to be governed by men, but is a theocracy in the truest sense, so long as we as a nation govern ourselves by the laws of God.

I will add as an interesting postscript, that while today, many citizens are thinking of adding amendments to the Constitution granting to people the rights to free healthcare and free Internet service, Americans of the 1840s were petitioning Congress to make an official recognition of Jesus Christ as the "ruler of the nation" in the Constitution (these petitions were presented to Congress by U.S. Representative John Quincy Adams). These motions were never actually carried out, and were probably thought unnecessary, since the evidence of our being a Christian nation comes from those who have the most governing authority in this nation: the people and their respective state and local governments.

Also, a petition of citizens of Perry and Muskingum counties, State of Ohio, praying an amendment of the constitution, by which the Sovereign of the universe shall be acknowledged as the God of the nation; also, that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the ruler of the nation. (9)

Mr. [John Quincy] Adams offered to present a petition of inhabitants of western Pennsylvania and Ohio, praying an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so that it shall contain a clear and explicit acknowledgment of the Sovereign of the universe as the God of this nation; an entire and avowed submission to the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of this nation; an unreserved reception of his revealed will contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the law paramount, by which all the affairs of this republic shall be regulated--all conflicting State laws being regarded as perfectly null and void; and entreating Congress to rescind all enactments whereby a violation of God's law is authorized, whether by running the mail-stage on his Sabbath, or otherwise. (10)

Also, a memorial of citizens of Licking county, State of Ohio, praying that the Sovereign of the universe may be acknowledged as the God of this nation, and that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the supreme ruler of the nation. (11)

Why I Support Ron Paul for President

2007-11-04T15:36:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul is a firm and a strict Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul is pro-family, and pro-life.

Ron Paul's stance on the issues is impeccable.

Ron Paul is NOT a God-hating liberal.

Ron Paul is NOT a Christian-hating liberal.

Ron Paul is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Ron Paul is NOT supported by the mainstream media.

Ron Paul is AGAINST the government tagging its citizens.

Ron Paul FIGHTS government fraud and corruption.

Ron Paul supports US SOVEREIGNTY.

Ron Paul OPPOSES the anti-"Patriot Act."

Ron Paul OPPOSES the North American Union.

Ron Paul is NOT a friend of the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!

2007-10-31T11:50:00.000-07:00

Happy Reformation Day! Or, you may call it the "Ninety-five Theses Day" if you wish. The "New Every Morning" online daily devotional by Coral Ridge Ministries has a fitting entry for this day. Check it out!

Friends of Liberty Blogroll

2007-10-17T07:46:00.000-07:00

Among Christians and true patriots alike, there is a great need for Virtue and Truth in these present times that try men's souls.

In the spirit of Samuel Adams, the Father of the American Revolution, and the Committees of Correspondence, Adams' great work among the Colonies, we agree that people of Virtue and Truth are the truest friends of Liberty:

He therefore is the truest Friend to the Liberty of his country who tries most to promote its Virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man... The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a Virtuous People.

The Friends of Liberty Blogroll is a network of blogs dedicated to promoting Virtue and Truth. We invite people from all walks of life and countries to join the Friends of Liberty Blogroll. Here are the requirements:

1. You understand the concepts of the words Virtue and Truth as primarily and traditionally defined by Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures.

Virtue as in "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37-40). Truth as in "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6) and "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16)

"To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the subtance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." John Witherspoon

2. You must post a Friends of Liberty Blogroll button somewhere on your blog, and link the button back to this page, or have a text link linking back to this page. See below for button images and html codes.

3. You must agree with the tenets outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These documents are not "living, breathing" documents that change with the times or every whim of man.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison

“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.” Chief Justice John Marshall

4. You pledge to encourage the godly values of Virtue and Truth in your own life and in your blog.

"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." Benjamin Rush

"Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow." Elias Boudinot

5. You recognize that the United States has its inalienable rights from God, not from the state or from man. You recognize that the United States form of government and its culture stems from the Christian values of the Old and New Testament, and that the present problems in our government and culture are because the nation has abandoned these values.

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Noah Webster

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster

6. You cannot be an atheist or a humanist.

"Shun, as a contagious pestilence, ... those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or enemies to the power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." John Witherspoon

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." Charles Carroll

"... And thus be our motto "In God We Trust." Francis Scott Key

"An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. ... Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. ... In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow." John Witherspoon

Ready to join? Just leave a comment with your blog's URL. I will add you to the blogroll as soon as possible.

Here are the buttons and codes. Feel free to download the buttons for yourself and link back to this post. Please be sure to have the button or text link back to this blogroll. Thanks!

Large Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Small Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty_small.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Tiny Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendLibertyTinyButton.png
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

FRIENDS OF LIBERTY BLOGROLL

Adventures in the Life of Upstate NY
The Foundation Forum
Meet the Founding Fathers
Alexander Hamilton Patriot
New York Traveler
Our Founding Truth
Brainbiter
Principled Discovery
New York Traveler (website)
The Cause of Liberty
New York Renovator
Mrs. Mecomber's Scrapbook
Fida Abbott
Yeah, Right ...
The Thinker New Member!!!
American Age New Member!!!

Please keep in mind that comments are solely for joining the blogroll.

Part Two: An Un-Biblical Revolution?

2007-09-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

Before we discuss the text of the Constitution, the intent behind the text, and the testimony of the Founders themselves upon whether or not our nation was a Christian one, we must understand why our government began in the first place.

Any ordinary schoolchild can tell you (with today's public indoctrination camps, let me say that hopefully can tell you) that the whole history of the United States Constitution began when our nation, in particular our Founding Fathers, decided to become a nation independent of the government and laws of Great Britain. But was the motive, or even the very act of revolting from England -- an act of blatant civil disobedience -- in accordance with Scripture? What about the Romans 13 passage, that says to be subject to civil authorities?

Of course, in both the Christian and non-Christian sphere, there are those who oppose the idea that the Revolution was biblically justified. This opposition is based upon several erroneous presuppositions.

The most notable of these erroneous presuppositions is that the Romans 13 passage establishes the doctrine of the "divine right of kings." This heretical doctrine is not only absurd, but it is clearly unbiblical. God never once told the prophets of the Old Testament to keep quiet or to "be subject" to the wicked decrees of kings and queens; God often harshly rebuked these kings through the prophets for their unjust acts. Because Israel had such an enormous problem with many evil kings, the Old Testament is filled with accounts of such rebukes and punishments. Such Old Testament passages, and even the Romans 13 passage itself, disprove the idea that God established the "divine right of kings." Let us examine the Romans passage more closely:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due; taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs are due, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor" (Romans 13:1-7; NKJV).

There are several things that needed to be pointed out in this passage. First of all, Paul gives the definition of true authority. Authority, which is the essence of government, is ultimately derived from God -- in other words, the institution of government has been created by God for the purpose of controlling mankind from devouring one another due to their sinful and selfish nature. Because the institution of government is created by God, those in government are accountable to God for the way in which they relate to the supreme authority of God's law (revealed in the Scriptures). Second, the Apostle Paul qualifies who true rulers are -- a terror not to good works but to evil; who "bears the sword" to punish evildoers.

To read this passage with the assumption that Paul said to blindly obey whatever the government should decree is erroneous. The early Christians, and Paul himself, often practiced civil disobedience when the decrees of the Roman emperors or the commands of the Jewish leaders contradicted the laws and commandments of God. In one such case, the Apostle Peter (the same Apostle who wrote "fear God, honor the king" in 1 Peter 2:17) boldly declared to the Jewish priests "Whether is it right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). As to the letter that Peter wrote years later, when he said "Fear God. Honor the king," notice that he said "Fear God" first. Godly fear is the first priority. And why shouldn't it be? God created mankind, and when the first man sinned and passed on to the human race a corrupted human nature, God created the institution of government. Therefore, all governments and all rulers owe their own authority and allegiance to God, and are expected to rule justly according to God's commandments. When rulers and governments scorn and spurn God's law, than those under the authority of such rulers have the obligation before God to commit civil disobedience, and obey God rather than man.

How then do we "honor the king," as the Bible commands us? In the same passage that Peter wrote those words, he wrote these words, which echo the theme of the Romans 13 passage:

"Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (1 Peter 2:13-17; emphasis added).

Peter's words simply mean that we are to show respect to authority by "obeying every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." If, therefore, the king or ruler should declare an ordinance contrary to God's law, we do not observe that ordinance for the Lord's sake. But because government is an institution created by God, and rulers have a great responsibility, we are obligated to observe and obey their decrees, so long as those decrees to not require a transgression of God's law on our part.

The second most notable erroneous supposition which leads people to view the American Revolution as being unbiblical is a great misunderstanding of why we separated from Great Britain and became our own nation. Most Americans have been and are being brought up with the great deception that the feud between America and Great Britain began with Parliament's issuance of the Stamp Act in 1765. The Americans are portrayed as having a problem with being taxed to the hilt, and therefore, they decided that their government was tyrannical. After the course of several years, the Americans decided to become independent, and form a democratic form of government in which everyone was given an equal say in the affairs of government. But a look into the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves, and the Founding Documents themselves, disproves this common view of the American Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton himself refuted this presupposition:

"That they have an invincible aversion to common-sense is apparent in many respects ... even that our contest with Britain is founded entirely upon the petty duty of three pence per pound on East India tea, whereas the whole world knows it is built upon this interesting question, whether the inhabitants of Great Britain have a right to dispose of the lives and properties of the inhabitants of America, or not. ... But some people try to make you believe we [American patriots] are disputing about the foolish trifle of three pence duty upon tea. They may as well tell you that black is white. Surely you can judge for yourselves. Is a dispute, whether the Parliament of Great Britain shall make what laws and impose what taxes they please upon us, or not; I say, is this a dispute about three pence duty upon tea? The man that affirms it deserves to be laughed at." (1)

Hamilton continues:

"It is true, we are denying to pay the duty upon tea; but it is not for the value of the thing itself. It is because we cannot submit to that without acknowledging the principle upon which it is founded; and that principle is, a right to tax us in all cases whatsoever.

"You [Americans] have heretofore experienced the benefit of being taxed by your own Assemblies only. Your burdens are so light that you scarcely feel them. You’d soon find the difference, if you were once to let the Parliament have the management of these matters."

Hamilton subsequently brings the issue into focus, and his words make clear that the Americans did not risk all they owned in a war in which victory was not guaranteed merely because of heavy taxation (if such was the case, then Americans in the present generation should have revolted against our own government years ago). He brings to attention the fact that because the Parliament was imposing cruel and unjust acts upon the colonists, when the colonists had never consented to be subject to the decrees of Parliament in the first place, our basic human rights were now at stake. He writes:

"But being ruined by taxes is not the worst you have to fear. What security would you have for your lives? How can any of you be sure you would have the free enjoyment of your religion long? Would you put your religion in the power of any set of men living? Remember civil and religious liberty always go together: if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course."

Indeed, the Americans had far greater troubles that confronted them than mere taxation. Taxation was heavy and unjust, and just as Hamilton said, the colonists resisted it, because Parliament was taking what did not belong to it, without the consent of the colonists.

But Jesus never commanded his disciples to resist the heavy, nay, unjust taxes of the Roman emperors, and start a new country. Was this action by the Americans unbiblical? Not in any way. Here is the true story of the beginning of the American Revolution.

When the first colonists landed upon the shores of America, they did acknowledge their allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and the charters of early America show that the early Americans did consent to be colonies of Great Britain. These charters delineated the relationship between the American colonies and the King of England. The colonists agreed to be British citizens, and in return, the King promised the colonists the protection of his army and navy. The charters allowed the colonists to be governed under the decrees of their own colonial governments, instead of the British Parliament. As was the case in most of the colonies, the colonial officials were confirmed or appointed by the British crown.

America had begun to make moves toward unifying into a single nation or confederation, but the sense of national unity never came until the French and Indian War broke out over a land dispute between Britain and France. Both countries claimed that the American colonies, or large parts of them, belonged to themselves. Of course, the American colonists sided with England, and during the course of the war, Americans were united like never before as they faced their common enemy: France. As history shows, the contest ended in success for Great Britain, and France grudgingly accepted defeat -- and the fact that they had lost Canadian territory, adjacent to northern New York State, to the British.

After the war ended, King George III came to power, and like several of his royal predecessors, he tried to take advantage of the colonies, and usurp more power and eliminate their self-government (the English Kings did have a fear that they would lose their American colonies, if enough colonists got the notion of forming an independent nation). Unlike most of the previous kings before him, George III decided to use Parliament as his weapon, instead of allowing that body to be his contestant. He bribed many of the members of Parliament into passing laws that would restrict the colonies from growing and prospering economically without direct intercourse with Britain (sounds eerily familiar). He sent his troops over to the colonies in droves, in order to plunder the people of their weapons; furthermore, these troops were given full permission by the British government to force to be housed in the homes of private Americans. If these troops acted disorderly, the homeowner was punished for complaining about the King's soldiers. The rights of trial by jury of one's peers was also stripped from the colonists. As there began to be mounting clout about what the British government was doing, Great Britain cast the last straw, by dissolving the colonial legislatures, and appointing all of the members itself!

The actions of the British government were a total violation of the charters that England and the colonies had agreed to. America did not decide then and there that we needed to become independent; all of English law and all of the legal precedent was on our side. In addition, there was extreme danger of declaring independence immediately. Great Britain was the only source of unity among the American colonies -- besides that, each colony had its own form of government (although the basic forms among all were generally the same), their own laws, which were made independently of other colonies, and their own currencies. So, for the initial years of struggle between America and the mother country; however, the King constantly postponed and then ignored whatever the colonial diplomats had to say. How could the colonists make their complaints known to the King if he wouldn't even listen? Furthermore, if he refused to listen, was it really worth trying to make their way into the King's Court?

Since the King would do nothing about the colonists' struggles with English government -- Parliament in particular, because Parliament had, according to the colonial charters, no right to pass acts binding upon the colonists, especially acts that allowed the English government to do anything whatever to the colonists -- the colonists decided to fend for themselves. The most famous act of self-defense against English tyranny that erupted during this time was the Boston Tea Party, a non-violent act of protest against the cruel acts of Parliament.

As may have been expected, the British government was furious when news of the "tea Party" reached London. George III declared the colonies to be in rebellion, and declared war on them. This fact is also extremely important in our understanding of the American Revolution. The American colonists never did anything to instigate the war. Great Britain started the War for Independence, not the American colonists. Therefore, as far as the Americans were concerned, the Revolution was a 100% defensive warfare. They were defending themselves from the "invaders," "intruders," and "conquerers." Oftentimes, General Washington would refuse offers by the British to surrender his forces (when the war actually began, of course), because such would mean that he would then bear the responsibility of making his countrymen vulnerable to the onslaughts of the "invaders." Defensive warfare is biblical; offensive warfare (for the sake of gain, spite, etc.) are unbiblical. The American Revolution, in this respect is perfectly biblical. John Jay, on of New York State's earliest patriots, and one of the first members of the First Continental Congress, wrote an essay on biblical war and non-biblical war, and demonstrated that the Revolutionary War was biblical, because it was a defensive war.

Upon declaring the colonies in manifest rebellion, George III sent the whole force of his navy to bombard and blockade Boston Harbor, with the intent of starving the city to extinction. He did likewise to the port of Charleston, South Carolina. When news of this reached the First Continental Congress, which was formed earlier that year in 1774, the delegates immediately decided to open their next session with prayer. The prayer that they opened was nothing like the formal prayers with which Congress is opened today; would to God that those prayers would make the Congressmen and Congresswomen weep! --at least! Such was the case with the first prayer in the Continental Congress. You can read about this prayer here.

This prayer is another fact worth noting in the context of the Christian-nation, biblical revolution/debate. Those who claim that the Revolution was unbiblical may declaim it as such, all they please, but anyone who reads this prayer and the documents relating to the event must answer why the Founders immediately fell to their knees and sought God for wisdom at such a critical time. They clearly appealed to the Christian God, for Jesus Christ is mentioned as being God's Son. They never considered bringing in a non-Christian religious leader to pray, and they did not bring in all or many world faiths into the opening prayer at Congress. The tone for the Revolution was overwhelmingly Christian.

A fascinating glimpse of this Christian tone can be caught simply by reading the first volume of John Church Hamilton's (Alexander Hamilton's son) History of the Republic of the United States ..., volume one pages 111-114:

"Three months later, the people of North Carolina, fired by the blood shed at Lexington, took the decisive step of declaring at Mecklenburg [footnote: "May 31, 1775"], 'We dissolve the political bands which have connected us with our mother country -- we absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown -- declare ourselves a free and independent people, are and of right ought to be, a sovereign, self-governing association, under the control of no power other than that of our God, and the general government of Congress -- to the maintenance of which Independence we solemnly pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.' Words imperishable, richer than the rich gold of their hills and valleys.

"Ere the close of this year, a writer with all the solemnity of religious feeling and fresh hope of the festive season [footnote: " 'Salus populi,' Dec. 27, 1775"], wrote in Philadelphia on Christmas eve, 'We may believe the Divine counsel to the united colonies is, Now is your time to form one general plan of an American union and constitution which shall dissolve only with the last breath of your expiring liberty; which under my protection will for an everlasting barrier against tyrannical encroachments -- an American empire of liberty.' 'The rattlesnake on the drum of a marine, "Don't tread on me," among other its habits, is solitary, and associates with her kind only when it is necessary for their preservation. In WINTER the warmth of a number together will preserve their lives, while singly they would probably perish.' [footnote: "American Archives, iv. 469"]

"New Hampshire exclaimed, 'Thanks be to Heaven! There is yet a way open to us, not only to escape the threatened ruin, but to become a happy, wealthy, powerful, respectable people. By declaring an immediate independency, proclaiming a neutrality, opening and declaring free all our ports, promoting manufactories,' wise words from the far East.

"Nathaniel Greene, passing from the plough and the forge where his Quaker father had taught him virtue and labor, to that high place for which nature extended him, writes in the opening year of seventy-six from Rhode island, where he had harangued, collected, and was drilling his troops, with all the sublimity of the theme and of his own true spirit. 'Permit me to recommend from the sincerity of my heart, ready to bleed in my country's cause, a declaration of independence; and call upon the world and the great God who governs it, to witness the necessity, propriety, and rectitude of it. You stand the representatives, not of AMERICA only, but of the whole world, the friends of liberty and the supporters of human nature.' [footnote: "Jan. 4, 1776. To Samuel Ward, in Congress"] ...

" 'But where is the king of America? He reigns above. Let it be that in America the law is king.' "[footnote: " 'Plain Hints.' March 13, 1776."]

"Connecticut was told to make use of her charter government as a popular government, carrying the elective principle to its fullest extent, and upon that basis to from a continental government. ...

Judge Drayton in South Carolina charged a grand jury fully on the doctrines of allegiance and abdication, and drew a part of the outline of the declaration of independence in its very words. [footnote: "American Archives, v. 1026"] 'It is my duty boldly to declare the law, that George the Third, king of Great Britain, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant; that is, he has not authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him.' 'The Almighty created America to be independent of Great Britain.' ...

" 'My hand and heart are full of it,' wrote the clear, strong-minded Hawley from among the hills of western Massachusetts. 'There will be no abiding UNION without it. When the colonies came to be pressed with taxes, they will divide and crumble to pieces. Will a government stand on recommendations? Can we subsist and support our trading people without trade? It appears more and more every day in the country and army that we cannot. Nay, without a real continental government our army will overrun us; and people will, by and by, sooner than you may be aware of, call for their old constitutions. For God's sake, let there be a full revolution, or all is done in vain. Independency and a well-planned government will save us. God bless you. Amen and amen.' [footnote: "Joseph Hawley to Elbridge Gerry, May 1 -- American Archives."]

" 'We have passed the rubicon, there is no retreat,' was told to a hesitating man in Pennsylvania. 'My prayer is, that America may rise triumphant, blossom as the rose, and swell with increasing splendor like the growing beauties of the spring, bearing in her right and the great charter of salvation -- the Gospel of the Heavenly Jesus; and in her left the unfolded volumes of peace, liberty, and truth.' [footnote: "Cosmopolitan, No. x. May. -- Ibid."]"

Earlier in this same book, John C. Hamilton writes:

"While the question [of submission to Parliament, unjust taxation, etc.] had assumed this grave form, the public feeling of the easter and middle colonies was aroused by a discussion of intense interest. As early as the reign of Queen Anne, the project of establishing an episcopate in America had been contemplated. It was supposed that the good humor consequent of the repeal of the stamp act might warrant the experiment, and a sermon of an English bishop [footnote: "Bishop of Landaff."], indicating its policy, was now received in America. To a vast population of Dissenters, nothing could be more offensive. The press teemed. The Episcopal clergy of New York banded together in its advocacy. The gauntlet was taken up. The dangers and arrogance of a prelacy were depicted. An endowed mitre, with a dependent and controlled clergy, were but the prelude tot he Established Church. Ecclesiastical courts will follow. Where would religious freedom next take refuge? No greater error can be committed than to undervalue the power of religious sentiment in this great revolution. The rights of dissent were at its foundation. And thus it was, that in this discussion, an acrimony much sharper than all the aggressions of the crown had caused, was shown; and, ere its close, that the first open declaration and prophecy of a near INDEPENDENCE was uttered. "(emphasis added)

" 'Courage, Americans,' said the American Whig, 'liberty, religion, and sciences are on the wing to these shores. The finger of God points out a mighty empire to your sons. The savages of the wilderness were never expelled to make room for IDOLATERS and SLAVES. The land we possess is the gift of Heaven to our fathers, and Divine Providence seems to have decreed it to our latest posterity. The day dawns, in which the foundation of this mighty empire is to be laid, by the establishment of a regular AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. All that has hitherto been done seems to be little beside the collection of materials for this glorious fabric. 'Tis time to put them together. The transfer of the European family is so vast, and our growth so swift, that before seven years roll over our heads, the first stone must be laid.' [footnote: "American Whig, No. V., April 11; begun March 14, 1768, in N.Y. Weekly Gazette. These essays were by William Livingston, afterwards Governor of New Jersey. -- Life by Theodore Sedgwick, 145."] (pp.

Astounding. The "first stone" was laid seven years and eight days later -- on April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green in Massachusetts, when the "shot hear 'round toe world" was fired.

And note Hamilton's statement which I put in italics: "No greater error can be committed than to undervalue the power of religious sentiment in this great revolution. The rights of dissent were at its foundation." (pp. 24-25) Is this an overstatement? I answer: How can it be? After all the evidence he cited, than it is out of the question.

John Church Hamilton's impression of the Revolution being fueled by the concern of Dissenters for their religious freedom is not surprising. It was the concern of his father, Alexander Hamilton. At about the same time that Alexander Hamilton was eloquently defending the rights of Americans in such pamphlets as "A Full Vindication of the Measure of the Continental Congress ..." and "The Farmer Refuted," he penned "Remarks on the Quebec Bill," which had two "Parts." He wrote:

"The privilege of worshipping [sic] the Deity in the manner his conscience dictates, which is one of the dearest he enjoys, must in that case be rendered insecure and precarious." (2)

Hamilton expressed his own fears, as well as the fears of his fellow Americans:

"For what can more nearly concern the safety and happiness of subjects, than the wise economy, and equitable constitution of those courts in which trials for life, liberty, property, and religion are to be conducted? Should it ever comport with the designs of an ambitious and wicked minister, we may see an Inquisition erected in Canada, and priestly tyranny hereafter find as propitious a soil in America as it ever has in Spain or Portugal."

It is worth noting that the Quebec Acts were not binding upon Americans, but Canadians. However, the Founders were concerned about the effect of the Acts upon American liberties, and as Hamilton did in this pamphlet, pointed to the Acts as a fearful example of the ways in which the British government was unjustly assuming authority over the lives of Americans. "If they can do this terrible thing in Canada, than they can do it to us," was their apprehension. Samuel Adams ("Father of the American Revolution") had feared the encroachment of the Catholic leadership ever since 1768, when he wrote:

"While it is frown fashionable, for men of ingenuity and public spirit, with a noble ardour [sic], to warn us against a tame submission to the iron rods; and LIBERTY, LIBERTY, is the Cry: I confess I am surpriz'd to find, that so little attention is given to the danger we are in, of the utter loss of those religious Rights, the enjoyment of which our good forefathers had more especially in their intention, when they explored and settled this new world. To say the truth, I have from long observation been apprehensive, that what we have above everything else to fear, is POPERY ... There is a variety of ways in which POPERY, the idolatry of christians, may be introduced into America: which at present I shall not so much as hint at, but shall point them out hereafter in their proper order. Yet, my dear countrymen -- suffer me at this time, in the bowels of my compassion, to warn you all, as you value your precious civil Liberty, and everything you can call dear to you, to be upon your guard against POPERY. My fears of POPERY have induced me to travel thro' this great continent to satisfy myself: And the more I know of the circumstances of America, I am sorry to say it, the more reason I be apprehensive of POPERY." ( ; emphasis original) (3)

So we see that the Revolution was not unbiblical. The Founders did not fight because they were upset at taxation, and wanted to establish a democracy. The Americans did not instigate the War; they defended themselves against tyrannical rule and oppression. When their own government turned on them in an unequivocal act of war and terrorism, they turned to God in earnest prayer. When they separated themselves from the mother country, they appealed to God and His law as the vindicator of their cause, and they openly stated that they viewed no government to be supreme to His, and that therefore, earthly kings did not hold absolute authority over people. Was this standpoint unbiblical? Hardly.

One of the Founding Fathers, one of the greatest and most powerful voices for liberty and American independence, eloquently and passionately disproved the idea that the Founders forged this Revolution in spite of God. Patrick Henry spoke the following words in the speech which made him immortal in the minds of his countrymen, in his "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death" address on March 23, 1775, approximately one month before his prophecy "The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!" was fulfilled on April 19 of that year. Henry said:

If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. ... Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. ... It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace [1 Thessalonians 5:3]. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

This speech, is apparently, no longer required reading in public schools. I suppose they are to afraid of the Anti-Christian Liberties Union, who would denounce a speech of a Founding Father as un-constitutional, and psychologically harmful to children. Oh! the insanity.

In my next post, I shall take a look at the motto of the American Revolution, "No King but King Jesus," which completely disproves the claim that our Revolution was unbiblical.

Then, in the succeeding posts, we shall look at how the Founders progressed their biblical worldview in the form of government that they established.

What Do You Think, Mr. Webster?

2007-09-26T18:35:00.000-07:00

What would Daniel Webster he were think about the War on "Terror"? I don't think he'd approve of it. Not because he was ashamed of being an American, or because he liked Muslims, but because he was determined to preserve the Constitution. In fact, so well known was his stance, that he earned the title "defender of the Constitution." Here is what Webster would say (and did say) if he was alive today:

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. (1)

"If war should sweep our commerce from the seas, another generation will restore it. If war exhausts our treasury, future industry will replenish it. If war desiccate and lay waste our fields, under new cultivation they will grow green again and ripen to future harvest. If the walls of yonder Capitol should fall and its decorations be covered by the dust of battle, all these can be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of a demolished government; who shall dwell in the well-proportioned columns of constitutional liberty; who shall frame together the skillful architecture which unites sovereignty with state's rights, individual security with prosperity?" (2)

Here are some quotes from modern-American folks:

"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election... It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!" (3)
~ George W. Malone

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." (4)
~Henry Ford

This is just a quick post, but it is certainly worth thinking about, especially the next time you turn on the tube or listen to the radio or read the newspaper.

Homeschooling: The Most Effective Way to Change this Nation

2007-09-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

Especially around the time of elections, we hear much about the need for Christians to vote. While it is true that Christians take their civil responsibility and vote, voting is not our ONLY civil responsibility. I think that over the past several years, we in the so-called “religious right” have put far too much emphasis on voting, signing petitions, filing legal battles against the ACLU, and have put far to little emphasis on our greater responsibilities. Many Christian conservatives don’t realize this perhaps, but improving one’s own character and lifestyle in conformance to Godly fear is an immeasurably valuable civic responsibility, or at least, it has tremendously valuable civil consequences (and the lack of such action on even this “private” level can have great negative ripple effects upon society as well). Training up a child in the way he should go is also a great civic duty. It’s impacts upon the character quality of our nation are infinity more tremendous and significant than showing up at the voting booths every other year or so. It is not the job of the government to insure a healthy moral or religious climate in a nation, though it is the job of the government to encourage morality and the practice of the Christian religion. It is the job of that nation’s individual citizens to insure such a society by living lives which are consistent with justice and morality. The role of parents in this particular area is especially crucial, since parents play a huge role in determining the morality of the next generation of that nation’s citizens, and therefore, parents in an immeasurable degree, decide the success or failure of that nation.

Right now, I think everyone in this country who is honest and well-informed about our nation’s history, especially our recent history, will agree that our nation is failing. Politically, our nation continues to drift astonishingly far from our lawful footing – from a government of just law to a government of arbitrary law. Socially, our nation continues to spurn the moral traditions that once made it healthy, successful, and happy; whereas the celebrities of America were once renowned for their honor, valor, and honesty, now Americans have no other role models besides well-known drug-addicts, prostitutes, and swindlers. Educationally, our nation has radically changed from producing generations of thinkers, social reformers, and philosophers to producing some of the most illiterate people in the “free world.” Clearly, the American civilization is rapidly declining, tyranny and immorality escalate, and there does not seem to be any major change in this trend.

Although many more Christians have enlisted in the battle, but we are fighting more battles, and the kind of battles we are fighting are relatively small (Please understand that it is not my purpose to negate fighting legal battles or saying that they are of miniature or no effect; all I am saying is that they will not save our nation by themselves – there must be something more). Instead of putting emphasis on fighting to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds” according to the Scriptures, we are emphasizing such battles as being able to keep a cross display on public grounds or whether or not a graduate student can say the word “Jesus Christ” in a positive manner. To combat the influences and tyrannical oppression and segregation of radical activist secular humanists, winning such minor victories will not win the war. I think the humanist establishment is very pleased to see us, their opponents wearing ourselves out and expending all of our energies on minor issues that have no great significance in the long run, besides keeping the enemy somewhat at bay by displaying our hostility towards their assaults. The humanist establishment is pleased to know that these small battles are draining so much of our energy, resources, and most importantly: TIME, while we are getting distracted from the real problem. As the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer put it so eloquently and so succinctly in his speech “The Christian Manifesto”: “Christians, in the last 80 years or so, have only been seeing things as bits and pieces which have gradually begun to trouble them and others, instead of understanding that they are the natural outcome of a change from a Christian World View to a Humanistic one; things such as overpermissiveness, pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things.” Dr. Schaeffer argued winningly that the mass acceptance of the humanist worldview has brought the decline of American civilization, and that only a massive change back to holding a purely Biblical worldview will turn our nation around for the good.

One must now ask the obvious question “How did the overall American worldview change from being strongly Christian and Bible-based to be so quickly and strongly ingrained in humanism?” The answer to that question is simply this. Especially in the mid- to late 19^th century, Christians in America began to accept more “liberal” interpretations of the Scriptures, some going so far as to say that Jesus was not God, and other such egregious errors. The head theologians in distinguished seminaries and universities such as Princeton and Yale began to teach a more “humanistic” form of Christianity, a form which centered on the morality of man rather than the holiness of Jesus Christ. The Christian church in America, therefore, was quite vulnerable when Charles Darwin came out with his books The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man in about the 1860s.

Some Christians were so unprepared (since they had rejected the most obvious teachings of Scripture) to answer these attacks of skepticism, that they soon turned their back completely on all educational and rational pursuits (unlike the majority of the 18^th century Christians, who flatly rejected the evolutionary postulations of Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus), concluding that all attempts at science, logic, and other fields of learning would only lead people toward skepticism of the Faith. Furthermore, these Christians still argued that faith in God was still possible, but only through blind faith – that despite what seemed to be evidence against Christianity, believers should still strive to convert others to the Faith. This group of Christians became known as the “Evangelicals,” because they believed that people should still become Christians despite “evidence” against the Bible. Other Christians, who became known as the “Fundamentalists,” argued differently; they maintained that the Bible is literally true and is the complete word of God. They believed that true science and reason corroborate the Bible’s accuracy and that Christians should not be intimidated by the onslaughts of useless skepticism. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the “fundamentalists” have been in the majority of American Christian believers and they have been regarded with scorn – labeled as radical extremists by the major media – because of this stand.

As an inevitable result of the widespread influence of the “evangelistic” line of thinking, Christians began to rapidly withdraw from the educational sphere. By 1892, Christians withdrew from higher education in America, and handed it over to the government. Of course, the secular humanists, who had been gaining a foothold in government, were all to happy to accept this new change. They had been trying to effect it ever since the early 19^th century. It was not long before they were plotting to effect a radical change in the entire educational system of America (this group included activists like John Dewey, a signer of The Humanist Manifesto I -- 1933). Below are several quotes from educators who spoke at the annual conferences of the National Educators Association, a huge branch of the humanist globalist movement in America.

“Education has had its share in making men and nations and a world which easily go war-mad. Education must play even a greater part in making men and nations and a world which shall be war-proof. The spirit of the new world order is to be made dominant; the school must lead the way. But exactly how? That is the question. You and I are teachers -- educators, to use the broader term; what is our part? How shall we discover it, perceive it clearly, perform it well, and win for ourselves and our profession the crown of wild olive from the hand of history, which is after all the reward most worth seeking? . . . Just what changes must be made in our education to produce men and nations and a world which shall be at least conflagration-proof? The briefest answer is that we must foster a new sense of unity of the world; we must take seriously that splendid resolution passed with enthusiasm by this convention proclaiming a great new aim -- World-Citizenship! This, fellow-teachers, is the most momentous action ever taken by the National Education Association; let us rejoice that our profession has at least not fallen short of declaring for the dawn of the new world-order.” --- Addresses and Proceedings of the NEA of the US (1917), p. 127 ~Edward O. Sisson, President, State Univ. of Montana, Missoula, Mont. "Education and World-Polity" [emphasis original]

"[I]f the public schools are to occupy in the future a position far more strategic than military establishments, or courts of law, or even legislatures have occupied in the past, it is clear that the institutions that prepare the teachers for the public schools must bear the most serious of all responsibilities in the new world-order." Addresses & Proceedings of the NEA of the USA (1919), p. 240 "Status of the Critic Teacher" W. C. Bagley, Teachers College, Columbia Univ., NYC, NY

"Above and beyond all other considerations, a federal department is needed to give education the status, the dignity, and the influence that it should have in a great democracy. It is needed to put the seal of the nation's approval upon the most important enterprise in which the people as a whole can engage. We cannot consistently be a nation in every other collective interest, and still remain in education forty-eight separate and distinct entities. The price that we have paid for our failure to have education adequately reflected in our national life has already been counted up in the heavy toll of illiteracy, limited literacy, health deficiencies, and alienism. National subventions to the states will do much to remedy these national weaknesses; but, taken by themselves, they will be and incomplete solution of the problem. To meet the financial condition there must be in our government a department of education second in significance to no other department, with a chief who is subordinate in rank, prestige, and influence to no official less important than the president himself." Addresses and Proceedings (1920), p. 456; same speaker

"We are forst to ask ourselves the question: What part shall the American public school take in the new world-order? Our first problem is the determine what the service is which education should render the state. We have long understood that education is intended to preserve and to promote a true devotion to American traditions, but we have been driven by the succession of events to recall to our minds the definition of American ideals. [Goes on to say that the spirit which formed America is making way for an international patriotism. This is blatant revisionism outright, and this view has been pushed on American public school students ever since then.]." (1916), p. 93 "What the Public Schools Can Do Toward the Maintenance of Permanent Peace", Fannie Fern Andrews, Sec. American School Peace League, Boston, MA [faulty spelling original]

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community...This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.” Adolf Hitler, socialist dictator

If these quotes do not make a chill run down through the readers’ spine, then I would suggest you remember where you went to school and what you were indoctrinated believe. (No doubt the answer will be you went to public school and were thoroughly trained to be a “believer” in the government.) That ought to make you shudder.

The activist secular humanists, especially those who are leaders in national public education are not distracted by the “bits and pieces”; they see things on the broader scale, and have seen them in that manner for at least the last century. They know that we Christians may vote and petition till we drop dead, but the humanists know that if we do break through in this generation, our efforts will collapse within the next generation or so, because THEY RAISE OUR CHILDREN. Because the schools are owned and regulated by the federal government, especially the monstrous federal educational bureaucracy proposed in one of the speeches above, the children in those schools are raised to believe that government is all-beneficent, and that to limit the reach of government is a crime against “human progress.”

Perhaps this will explain so many individuals over-emphasis on voting. We think that it is up to the government to make sure that America remains a Christian nation; and that by repealing Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1947) and Roe v. Wade (1973), we will restore order and virtue to society. Don’t get me wrong; Christians should vote (for GOD-fearing men with uncompromising Christian principles), and it is scary when very few Christians vote in elections. Unless Christians take this responsibility seriously, we will see an increase in politicians who will persecute Christians and limit their basic freedoms. We are beginning to see such a thing happening in our nation, which makes this matter all the more urgent. However, we must understand that voting will only change the rulers and current policies, but voting will not change the nation. Politicians may declare all they want to that our nation was established upon Christian principles, but we will not be a Christian nation until Christians (86% of American population) behave and believe like Christians. And this will never happen (the situation will only worsen) if Christians allow a secular-humanist government to give to our children the worst it has to offer of history (revisionism), science (science fiction), literature (crappy fiction which centers mostly on immorality or the occult), grammar and writing (reliant completely upon the opinion of the student), and most dreadful of all, social engineering (the creation of government puppets who will view the taking away of our basic liberties as “necessary” and “for our security” and who will view those who suspect the government’s actions as “conspiracy theorists” and “radical extremists”).

Christians need to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but we can’t do that when the public schools are drilling into our children’s’ brains the fear and admonition of the government. Today’s public school system has had over a century of practice to brainwash kids to despise their parents or to look on their elders with a patronizing disrespect. Any and all generation gaps in the past century were accomplished with the major help of the public school system. Yes, parents have and may file lawsuits against bad content in the classroom or the textbooks, but such lawsuits will neither change the rotten system of social engineering, nor make the NEA change their minds about raising up generations of Americans who will surrender their national identity in the name of “world peace” (i. e., a one-world-government that will seek to kill every Christian on the planet in order to enforce a one-world-religion of secular humanism – the Bible prophesies this in the book of Revelation).

Homeschooling, on the other hand, has innumerable advantages to children and to America. It has been demonstrated that homeschooled students receive a far better education than the national average of students (1), (2). There are several reasons for this. The first is obvious: the goal of the parents doing the homeschooling is to give their children a high quality education, rather than to convert them into political robots for future use. Because of this, parents focus on genuine education, not social engineering, and the homeschooled are encouraged to think for themselves and to make new discoveries. The second reason for the success of homeschooling is that parents, who know their children best, are more capable of teaching their children difficult subjects and making abstract subjects real to their children. Hence, the homeschooled have a better understanding of the concepts they memorize, not just knowing what the facts are. Parents also have a way of knowing their child’s strengths and weaknesses, the things that the child can do well and cannot do well. The parent, therefore, is given all the freedom to gear the child’s education toward the abilities of the child. History shows that this kind of education – which has been held to by generations throughout the previous centuries – always works (George Washington, Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Edison received the majority of their education directly from their parents).

The social benefits of homeschooling are equally tremendous as well. Most of the child’s life is spent on some form or another of education, and when this education is in the hands and free reign of the parents, a special parent-child bond is formed, and the child has a greater love and admiration for the parent. Societies are always stable when the bonds between parents are sound. Homeschooled children are also protected from the decadent (for lack of a more repulsive word) culture which is devouring our nation and which is being nurtured in the classroom of the public schools. Homeschooled children are less likely to view immoral and stupid behavior as “normal” or “cool” and are far less likely to be tempted to do stupid or immoral things. Anyone with a head on their shoulders would not have to be convinced that moral children are the hope and security of a healthy nation.

The choice should not be difficult to make for Christian believers in America. In this country, we still have relative freedom, and we certainly have the freedom to school our own children. Some will probably will shrink from the proposition with apprehensions about the cost of homeschooling. Sure; homeschooling is hard work and it costs money and much attention. But there is a heavier cost to pay in paying exorbitantly high taxes to support the rising annual budgets of the schools (those in my area are in the hundreds of millions of dollars) for lousy results: kids who graduate illiterate, have unstable morals, and have learned less then the generation preceding them. If Christians parents really love God and love their children, they will do what it takes to obey God's commandments and give their children a good education.

It is true that homeschooling is not the only way to combat and protest the new-world-order agenda -- there are other alternatives as well. Many churches have their own private schools, which not only shelter children from evil influences but also help the parents of the child to be more involved in their child's education than they could be if the child were raised in a public school. There is also the option of sending children to other Christian schools, but these are more public and usually provide a less secure environment for the child than in his home or church school. The responsibility of a child's education rests upon the parents; parents are to obey the clear commands of God and raise their children up in the way that they ought to go (Proverbs 22:6). Just because the culture demands that children be schooled by the public schools doesn't change that command.

If Christians take so seriously their responsibility to vote for Christian leaders, Christian parents must take their duty to raise their own children (not leave them up to the government) equally seriously. Without passing on the standards we are fighting for in the polls and in our petitions and in our lawsuits, we will lose the so-called "Culture War." God forbid we should leave our moral culture in the disposal of our government, our courts, Hollywood, or any other corporation (and no, trying to reform or amend those groups WON'T work in changing America), because the culture of a nation is reliant upon the character and lifestyles of the majority of people, not upon the declarations of politicians in long black robes or of the acts of celebrities on television screens.

"It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.
~~~
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?"
~ JOHN ADAMS ~

"Be It Resolved ..."

2007-09-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

... that a new flag be created for the State of New York, viz.:

"The golden dollar signs indicate the sanctity and value of the Almighty Dollar (a term coined by New-Yorker Washington Irving), which the almighty state legislature hath, by enactment hereof, deified. The Latin motto beneath the dollar signs, which reads "Vectigalis Excelsior" translates "Taxes Ever Upward"; this signifies the precedent of the sovereign State government.

A Day to Remember

2007-09-11T17:19:00.000-07:00

Judy Aron at Consent of the Governed posted a nice memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. President Bush was was right in a way when he said that freedom was attacked on that day -- the freedoms of all Americans have been continually subjected to the tyranny of our own governments, and our politicians have used the deaths of those people on that day to wrench our liberties from us.

Remember this day, patriots. Honor those who died in the attacks, who sacrificed their lives for those who would have perished on that day -- those who gave their lives so that someone else might live. But this day has significance to the living, as well. It teaches us how transient and passing life is, and that we may launch into eternity at any moment. For those of us who continue to live, and who, as American citizens, are responsible for the direction our nation takes, let us remember the words of the Scripture:

It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes. Psalm 118:9

What Do We Mean by a "Christian Nation"?

2007-08-29T12:19:00.000-07:00

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues that surround our nation's early history is the religious nature of our Founding Era. Although more secular historians are beginning to admit that religion (in particular, Christianity) played a key role in our nation's move toward independence from Great Britain, and that our Founding Fathers did religious things, and may even have been genuine Christians, the debate over separation between church and state and the issue of Christianity's influence upon our form of government still continues. In my experience, there are two fundamental reasons that this debate remains largely unsettled in the minds of many of Americans. (1) There is a confusion of what the phrase "a Christian nation" means in America's case, and (2) some people, especially those who have a bias against God and Christianity, would feel uncomfortable if they knew and acknowledged that God's law was meant to be the law ultimately respected and practiced in this country; therefore, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18), in order to keep themselves in their comfortable delusion. Experience proves that it is impossible to convince those who are determined to hold on to their lie no matter what the facts are. But perhaps it is possible to correct the misunderstandings that exist in the minds of those who don't understand what an American Christian nation is.

Whenever someone enters a debate over whether or not something is true, the first and most important step in presenting your counter-argument is to define the key terms used in that argument. In this case, the point I wish to make is "America is a Christian nation." The most important part of that sentence is the phrase "Christian nation," since that is the variable depending upon which side is doing the arguing. When the term "Christian nation" is used, several definitions of that term immediately occur to people:

Definition #1: "Christian nation" = theocracy. In other words, a Christian nation is a nation in which the clergy who belong to the Christian denomination(s) essentially govern the nation through the government. This is a description which matches the Roman government under Emperor Constantine I, or the European monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no question that these governments were corrupt and full of abuses. This is not the description of a true and literal theocracy ("rule of a nation by God Himself"), but a description of a government under the rule of men, who CLAIM to get their instructions directly from God.

This is not Scriptural government, because the Scriptures teach that absolute power given to any man or group of men is prone to be abused and used for corrupt ends, now mater how well-intentioned those ends may be. This doctrine is grounded in the principle that man has a degenerate nature that centers around his own self-interest and desire to enrich and empower himself. One cannot read the Bible without finding this principle pervading and preeminent. Absolute power, in which a man is accountable to no one but himself, is to great a temptation for any man to resist.

Unfortunately, many Christian denominations in the past (take for popular example, the Catholics during the Dark Ages, or the Puritans of early colonial Massachusetts) have thought that they needed to "help Jesus out" by "preparing" the world for His return and millennial rule. When this kind of theology was put into practice, it resulted not only in obvious tyranny and injustice (though not all those who inflicted such were truly born-again Christians), it manifested an outright breach of Scripture. In the last chapter of the Book of Revelation, after the Apostle John (who wrote Revelation) was shown the "New Jerusalem" and Christ's kingdom in all of its glory, beauty, and righteousness, the angel who was "conducting the tour of the future" so-to-speak, gave this warning:

"Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." (Revelation 22: 10-11; italics added)

Verse 11 (in italics above) has eluded many of its readers, including myself, for some time. Surely, this verse does not mean that Christians are not to take a stand against ungodliness. What does it mean then? I have come to believe that Christ was most likely warning the Christian leaders who were then to come not to coerce Christianity upon people. Only Christ is allowed to have such absolute authority, for He is without a depraved human nature, and only He has the ability or right to demand obedience and submission. When one transgresses this, he easily creates his own religion and set of "oral traditions." The Catholic leadership in medieval Europe did just that, and therefore not only persecuted non-believers, but those who were trying to sincerely serve God, and therefore the Catholics did not let him who is holy be holy still. To make the church and the government two separate institutions is not unbiblical, but to merge the two into one, or to say that one institution must have no part in the other is unbiblical.

Definition #2: "Christian nation" = a nation in which a Christian denomination(s) is the established religion of that nation. A good example of such a government would be the Massachusetts Bay Colony as it was under the strict rule of the Puritans. No room was made for serving God according to one's own conscience. Once you were born into that colony, you were fastened into that community's strict way of life. Singing hymns or smiling on the Sabbath were considered sins. You were not allowed to hitch your wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath. Anyone who questioned the overt strictness of the leaders, whether or not their arguments were purely Scriptural, were fastened in the stocks. If such behavior persisted, one could be banished from the colony and forced to live a solitary life in the cruel wilderness of northern New England or even put to death. This Puritan colony was a sad example of how people's man-made religion, enforced by the arms and might of the government, can confound the very Scriptural basis which they claim to uphold.

Other examples of such "Christian nations" were Great Britain at the time of the Founding Fathers, and Europe at the time of the Inquisition.

When one hears the claim that "America was founded as a Christian nation" with these two definitions in mind, they react with disgust, and respond that America's Founders envisioned no such country -- and rightly so. But the two above definitions did not at all describe the Christian nation envisioned by our Founders. The proper definition of a "Christian nation" in the American case, should be:

Definition #3: "Christian nation" = a nation in which the BASIC principles of Christianity, found clearly written and promulgated in the Scriptures, are the foundation of the form of government and the quality of society and culture. In this country, no one is required to go to church, or is forbidden from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. Nor are they forbidden to fill their car with gas on Sunday. God does not desire that these be the unbreakable laws of the nation. He desires that men in governments and leaders in society should "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" (Micah 6:8) with Him. Is this the way our Founders framed our government? Yes. General George Washington, in his Circular Letter to the State Governors of the United States said that unless the leaders and citizens of this country followed those three commandments, found in Micah 6:8, "we will never hope to be a happy nation." Our nation is a "Christian nation" in this sense because our basic principles of government (rule of law as opposed to a rule of man, checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.) are grounded in the basic principles of Christianity. Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence presuppose a Creator, God, and that all men are accountable to obey His laws, as revealed to mankind in the Scriptures.

Upon this statement, our Founders agreed. They did not expect that America would require any citizen to believe a particular form of Christianity, but that our nation embraced the "GENERAL PRINCIPLES of Christianity" (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813).

In the following posts, I shall first explore what the Founders had to say about the role of Christianity and the Bible in the role of government, and then we shall look at how Christianity and the Bible are the cornerstone of the foundations of our Constitution and original political system.

Thoughts on Reason, Revelation, and the Bible

2007-08-10T17:43:00.000-07:00

Over the last several days, much discussion has ensued on this blog (and on my other blogs) touching upon the subject of the source of our Founders political beliefs and therefore, the ideological foundations of our government. In my last two posts, "Reason v. Revelation?" (parts one and two), I showed the quotes from our Founders themselves, which show that our Founders venerated the teachings of Scriptures (even though not all the Founders agreed with everything in the Bible), and viewed the Scriptures as the ultimate authority of law. They relied upon reason, yes; and they observed the law of nature. But as Sir William Blackstone succinctly put it, "DIVINE PROVIDENCE, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT REVELATION. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found ONLY IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES" (emphasis added). (1)

Any critical mind would ask in objection to Blackstone's statement: "How can valid revelation be discovered and false revelation be rejected apart from reason? It is stupid just to blindly accept any statement just because it wears the label 'revelation.' "

This question has much truth. Many people throughout the ages, and even up to this present time, have been led astray by false religions because the religious leader claimed to have a divine revelation from heaven. Many pagan religions rely upon the ignorance of masses in order to accumulate large followings. But perhaps many people would have known the truth, if they had simply thought things through rationally for themselves, instead of placing blind faith in a religion of which they had no proof. Students of history have observed the tragic outcomes of the abuse of "divine revelation," and several have concluded that everything must pass the "smell test" of human reason, so that the truth will be known, and falsehoods avoided.

This sounds like a rational proposition. However, there is one logical problem with this prescription for the human problem of determining truth:

Absolute truth cannot be discovered by reason alone. Men do not just reason, without making assumptions upon which to base their reason. One cannot determine the dimensions of an object without having a system of measurements. Reason is like a ruler; but the ruler is not a ruler unless it bears the markings of the measuring system its user recognizes. Just as the use of the ruler is reliant upon a basic system of measurements, so the use of reason is reliant upon a set of basic assumptions.

An understanding of this concept is essential. Throughout history, intellectuals have observed and scrutinized pieces of data, and come up with different conclusions. Why is this the case? Men have made different assumptions, and reason in different manners, and therefore, though they do reason, they come to different conclusions. Sometimes these conclusions are not easy to reconcile!

The set of assumptions that men make, and which form the basis of their reasoning, is called a "basic belief system." The basic belief system is often heavily grounded in one's religion (one's outlook on himself, the world around him, and his responsibilities to whatever was ultimately responsible for his existence). Religion, then, forms the basis of reason. Ah, but wait! What is to check the accuracy of one's religion? "Reason, of course!" one might say. True. One must have a reasonable religion. But that still does not negate the fact that one reason's on a basic belief system. We "reason" so as to calculate mathematical equations based upon the assumption that 1x1=1, or that 7x0=0. Perhaps our rational faculties cannot comprehend every detail of why this is so, but when the mathematical equations based upon those assumptions are put into practical use, they always serve a valuable purpose, and they always work.

In the same way, religion is somewhat assumptive, but not necessarily blindly assumptive. For example, the Christian religion believes that there is one God who created the world, that He created the natural systems and organisms around us for our benefit, and that He is a good and just God. Our reason cannot comprehend Him, though we can discover that He exists with our reason (if we are willing to be honest and admit His existence). We do not see Him, cannot feel Him, or most of the time audibly hear Him. Our minds cannot comprehend everything in His nature; nor can our reason discover why He does everything that He does. But we have just as much a reason to trust in God and commit ourselves to Him, as a little infant does his mother, even though he does not understand everything about his mother. It is reasonable to make the logical assumption that God, who created this world and ourselves out of nothing, knows far more than we do. Throughout history, He has given us innumerable proofs of His goodness and faithfulness, and therefore we can trust Him when He says things that we may not understand or comprehend with our logic. If one acknowledges God's existence because of his own logic, but places his logic on an equal level with God, that man serves his own limited brain, and not God, and therefore is guilty, in God's eyes, of idolatry. Deists are not the true disciples of God therefore, because although they acknowledges that He exists, they shut out all ways for Him to communicate with them, His own creation. Their brain, therefore, is their source of truth and morality, and although some of their postulations may be true, yet they shall always be limited from understanding the most important truth, which is only revealed clearly and explicitly in the Scriptures.

This of course, brings up the question of the validity of the Bible. There are many portions which seem "unreasonable," such as the Trinity, the birth of Jesus by a virgin, His miracles, resurrection, and so on. But such accounts are not unreasonable at all. We cannot fully comprehend them with our reason, but (I appeal to my previous statement) it is perfectly rational to make the logical assumption that a God who made this world and the laws by which it operates (this fact CAN be confirmed by the observation of nature coupled with reason) can 1) supersede those laws of nature, 2) create the X-chromosome out of nothing that it took for Jesus' birth, 3) cause Jesus to rise from the dead, and 4) exist in an essence that cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.*
*Dr. D. James Kennedy quotes a distinguished theologian, who compares the Trinity to the "trinity" of time, in his book Why I Believe. This passage is truly fascinating, and I think gives much clarity to the theological dispute over the Trinity.

The Bible has never been debunked scientifically, historically, logically, or in any other way. These fields have only corroborated what the Bible says (and some of these fields owe their very progress to the Bible, such as in the case of science). Many atheists and skeptics who have searched out the Bible, in an effort to disprove it or look for errors have not only become Christians, but defenders of the faith. Among these people are Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, both of whom have published books on this subject. If the Bible, then, has been found to be true to such an astonishing degree, even though some questions to minor details still remain, why then, can we not trust it as the word of God? Here are philosopher John Locke's words on the subject:

The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment [sic]. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. (2)

Reason v. Revelation? Part Two

2007-08-04T14:52:00.001-07:00

In my last post, "Reason v. Revelation? Part One," was introduced the debate of whether or not the Founders relied upon, or at least believed in, direct, divine revelation. The question we are asking is "Did or didn't the Founders base their political beliefs and our founding documents on the basic principles of the Bible or not?" Let me begin answering that question with a quote from Samuel Adams, the "Father of the American Revolution."

The Rights of the Colonists as Christians - These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found closely written and promulgated in the New Testament. (1)

Here, the Father of the American Revolution says that our rights come from God, and may be BEST understood by reading and carefully studying the words of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament. The Founding Fathers certainly used their reason, but they did not rely upon man's reason ALONE; they relied heavily upon Biblical principles, as the quotes I shall present will unequivocally demonstrate.

Some may object: "Samuel Adams was most probably an orthodox Christian, so of course he would say such a thing. But the more important Founding Fathers like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, who were more than likely religious rationalists, did not hold that same views as the orthodox Founders like Sam Adams."

Such an argument has many blatant falsehoods. (1) What Founder can be more important than Sam Adams, the "father of the American Revolution"?* (2) We shall see what the other named Founders believed about revelation, that this argument is largely false, (3) and hence we shall find that several of the individuals named were NOT rationalists, and (4) allow me to point out that MOST of the Founding Fathers were most likely orthodox Christians. Now, when I say "orthodox," I do not mean that that Founder(s) agreed with any particular denomination's creed, but rather with the doctrines which are clearly written in the Bible. I think that these "basic doctrines" are best delineated in the Apostles' Creed. The writings of the Founding Fathers (ahem, THEIR writings, not the analysis of some scholar, either secular humanist or evangelical), and may be easily searched for key words online, in order to substantiate this claim. I have an "online library" of such rare writings of theirs (a library which is being continually expanded, so be sure to bookmark this great resource): The Founders' Bookshelf. This collection is the result of 4+ years of hunting for the Founders writings online, as they are hardly available to the average citizen (such as myself) and not for convenient use. Here, however, their writings may be viewed and studied by any American at his or her own convenience.
*Some of the Founding Fathers named above, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin certainly did contribute to the Founding Era in important ways, but there are many more Founding Fathers that contributed much more than those two men, but Americans never hear of them often or learn about them, and the modern public (reads: government-regulated) school system is largely to blame. The public school system is the evangelism center for secular humanism, and so the least Christian of the Founders have been emphasized at the expense of other Founders such as Benjamin Rush, George Mason, John Jay, William Livingston, Elias Boudinot, Johnathan Trumbull, Sr., and many others. It must also be pointed out that many of the Founders disagreed vehemently with those two men (especially with Jefferson) on many important points. So, just because Jefferson or Franklin said something about the Founding Era or their fellow Founders, or the Constitution doesn't necessarily make their words pure gold. I will discuss this in the future on my Meet the Founding Fathers blog.

But back to the Sam Adams quote. Was Sammy Adams the only one to hold such a belief? Did the less "orthodox" Christian Founders disagree? Not his cousin John Adams:

The GENERAL PRINCIPLES on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were those GENERAL PRINCIPLES? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects [the Roman Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, and Universalists] were united, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. (2)

This statement makes you think twice about the assertion that the Founders rejected the Bible and embraced "reason" instead. Is this statement by Adams isolated? Did he express different positions as he grew older, and began to more seriously doubt several basic tenets of Christianity? It is worth pointing out that the above quote comes from a letter written to Thomas Jefferson in 1813, 13 years before Adams passed away. Here are some other quotes from Adams on the subject of revelation, the Bible, and American government:

"Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream [sic] Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guilt is brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance." (3)

"No Priest nor Pope has any Right to say what I shall believe, and I will not believe one Word they say, if I think it is not founded in Reason and in Revelation. Now how can I judge what My Bible justifies unless I can read my Bible. ... "A Man who can read, will find in his Bible, in the common sermon Books that common People have by them and even in the Almanack [sic] and News Papers, Rules and observations, that will enlarge his Range of Thought, and enable him the better to judge who has and who has not that Integrity of Heart, and that Compass of Knowledge and Understanding, which form the Statesman." (4)

"The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain, and in the most apparent Welfare of the Nation as well as the People in America, that I must confess it rejoices my very Soul." (5)

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in Concience [sic] to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and Charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love, and reverence towards almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by Gluttony, drunkenness, or Lust-no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or any other trifling and mean amusement-no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbour [sic], but would live in peace and good will with all men-no man would blaspheme his maker or prophane [sic] his Worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected Piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a Eutopia [sic], what a Paradise would this region be. " (6)

"Gilbert Livingston, who took the Reflection to himself and his Party and grew warm, 'Nothing says he mortifies me so much in the misconduct in France and America too, as to see that the Fools are all playing the Game into the hands of that Mr. John Adams.'
'Why?' Said Benson to Livingston who it seems is a serious Man. 'Mr. Adams reads the Scriptures and there he finds that Man is as stupid as the Wild Asses Colt. He believes what he reads and infers his necessary Consequences from it. That is all. Mr. Adams is not to blame. He did not write the Scriptures, He only reads and believes.' " (7)

John Adams didn't agree with everything in the Bible, but did he think that it's principles were contrary or alien to the form of government that the Founders established? Hardly. Here are what some other Founding Fathers had to say about revelation, and the role of the Bible in American government:

SAMUEL ADAMS

"A PROCLAMATION FOR A DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING AND PRAISE.
FORASMUCH as the occasional meeting of a People for the exercise of Piety and Devotion towards God, more especially of those who enjoy the Light of Divine Revelation, has a strong tendency to impress their minds with a sense of Dependence upon HIM and their Obligations to HIM.
I have thought fit, according to the ancient and laudable Practice of our renowned ancestors, to appoint a day of Public Thanksgiving to God, for the great benefits which HE has been pleased to bestow upon us, in the Year past."
~Thanksgiving Proclamation by Massachusetts Governor Samuel Adams, Oct. 14, 1795; The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume 4

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality, and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.
In proportion as success has appeared to attend the plan, a bolder project has been unfolded. The very existence of a Deity has been questioned and in some instances denied. The duty of piety has been ridiculed, the perishable nature of man asserted, and his hopes bounded to the short span of his earthly state. DEATH has been proclaimed an ETERNAL SLEEP; "the dogma of the immortality of the soul a cheat, invented to torment the living for the benefit of the dead." Irreligion, no longer confined to the closets of conceited sophists, nor to the haunts of wealthy riot, has more or less displayed its hideous front among all classes.
Wise and good men took a lead in delineating the odious character of despotism, in exhibiting the advantages of a moderate and well-balanced government, in inviting nations to contend for the enjoyment of national liberty. Fanatics in political science have since exaggerated and perverted their doctrines. Theories of government unsuited to the nature of man, miscalculating the force of his passions, disregarding the lessons of experimental wisdom, have been projected and recommended. These have everywhere attracted sectaries, and everywhere the fabric of government has been in different degrees undermined.
~"Fragment on the American Revolution" (unknown date of authorship; estimated to have been authored in the 1790s); The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. by Henry C. Lodge, vol. 8

JAMES WILSON

That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. This law has undergone several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different ways in which it has been promulgated, and the different objects which it respects.
As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures, it has been called revealed law.
As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it is has been denominated the law of nations.
But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God.
Nature, or, to speak more properly, the Author of nature, has done much for us; but it is his gracious appointment and will, that we should also do much ourselves. What we do, indeed, must be founded on what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.
Of that law, the following are maxims -- that no injury should be done -- that a lawful engagement, voluntarily made, should be faithfully fulfilled. We now see the deep and the solid foundations of human law.
Those parts of natural philosophy, which more immediately relate to the human body, are appropriated to the profession of physick [sic].
The law eternal, the law celestial, and the law divine, as they are disclosed by that revelation, which has brought life and immortality to light, are the more peculiar objects of the profession of divinity.
The law of nature, the law of nations, and the municipal law form the objects of the profession of law.
~The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, L.L.D.; vol. 1, pp. 104-105 --"Lectures on Law"

[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is -- to discover the will of God -- and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.
~The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, L.L.D.; vol. 1, page 120

GEORGE WASHINGTON

The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.
~The Writings of George Washington, ed. by Fitzpatrick, "Circular to the States" (26:485)

For certainly it is more consonant to all the principles of reason and religion (natural and revealed) to replenish the earth with inhabitants, rather than to depopulate it by killing those already in existence, besides it is time for the age of Knight-Errantry and mad-heroism to be at an end. Your young military men, who want to reap the harvest of laurels, don't care (I suppose) how many seeds of war are sown; but for the sake of humanity it is devoutly to be wished, that the manly employment of agriculture and the humanizing benefits of commerce, would supersede the waste of war and the rage of conquest; that the swords might be turned into plough-shares, the spears into pruning hooks, and, as the Scripture expresses it, "the nations learn war no more."
~ Letter to Francois Jean, Comte de Chastellux, April 25, 1788 (manuscript from Library of Congress)

If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly [34] or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted [sic] with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt. can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.
~proposed address to Congress, April ?, 1789; Writings of Washington, ed. by Fitzpatrick (30:301-302)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in Rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe, and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this Country.
~speech on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, Friday, August 10; from Madison's "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787"

JAMES MADISON
It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance [the creation of the US Constitution] without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.
~Federalist #37

ELIAS BOUDINOT

He wrote the pamphlet "The Age of Revelation" in rebuttal to Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason."

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS

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.
~ Pennsylvania Constitution, Article XVI, Section 10 (1776) (drafted by, among others, influential Founding Father Benjamin Franklin)

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: ... " I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
~Delaware Constitution, Article 22 (1776) (drafted by, among others, Declaration-signers Thomas McKean and George Reed)

... [A]nd they [members of the state house of representatives] shall be of the Protestent [sic] religion...
~Georgia Constitution, Article VI (1777)

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 Constitution, Article XXXII (1776)

And that whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian Protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves In a society for the purposes of religious worship, they shall, (on complying with the terms hereinafter mentioned,) be, and be constituted a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law as of the established religion of the State, and on a petition to the legislature shall be entitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law, and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called. But that previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination as aforesaid, and in order to entitle them thereto, each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement fir union of men upon presence of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State:

1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped [sic].

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.

5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.
~South Carolina Constitution, Article XXXVIII (1778)

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 Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
~Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, Section IX (1777)

The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised [sic] in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.] ...
[Any person chosen governor, lieutenant governor, councillor [sic], senator or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.--
"I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised [sic] and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."
~Massachusetts Constitution, Chapter II, Section I, Article II; Chapter VI, Article I (1780) (drafted by, among others, John and Samuel Adams)

The Founders believed in revelation and reason without the Bible? Hardly. The Founders thought that Christianity and the Bible were incompatible with civil government? Don't think so.
In spite of this mountain of glaring evidence above, it will probably be objected by some that the basic ideas of law, nature, God, etc, are still compatible with "theistic rationalism," or (if I understand the implied definition correctly), accepting the existence of God, but rejecting direct revelation and the seemingly "irrational" Scriptures (the miraculous, Jesus' divinity and atonement, the Trinity, etc.). It is true that there were some Founders whose beliefs do line up with this definition (Jefferson, probably Franklin, John Adams, and James Wilson). But this was not the overall view of the Founders.

This post is long enough already, and I think I have made my point by now.

My next post will be "Thoughts on Reason, Revelation, and the Bible." It will explain my ideology and logic on this point, and therefore help explain why I believe that the Founders had a Biblical concept of government, and that, though they did heavily rely upon reason (and it is purely Scriptural to do so, as I will show in my next post), they did not place man's reason above God's law (in GENERAL; Jefferson's writings show that he believed reason was above the Bible, though he believed the Bible was a great, if not the best, book).

Reason vs. Revelation? Part One

2007-07-30T17:47:00.000-07:00

Good question. Are reason and revelation contrary to one another? Jonathan, who has been commenting on my blogs lately, said this:

"Is it a government in which God's moral law is not recognized as the ultimate source of justice...." [quoting a previous post of mine]

I don't mean to pick on you and your blog. I'll scram if you want me to. But when it came to that God-given "higher" law, Founders like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton (especially the quotation that you offer) didn't mean "open the Bibles and there you will find it." Rather, as theistic rationalists, they believed God primary revealed Himself through nature not scripture. Therefore, man's reason, not revelation was the primary mechanism for ascertaining such higher law.

As John Adams put it:

"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, "The Founders on Religion," p. 132.

Or as Adams put it again:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

For more, see this post.The post he mentions is his own argument that the Founders used essentially "rationalistic" (basically equivalent to "deistic") methods to establish our government, and to establish the foundations of our jurisprudence. This post will tackle the controversy more in-depth then my previous comments.

In the above-mentioned post, Jonathan states:

The Founders believed in both man made "positive" law, and God given "natural" law, which positive law, by right could not contradict. However the content of natural law was ascertainable entirely by man's reason, arguably unaided by revelation. Or, if revelation had any role to play in determining "the laws of nature and nature's God," it was to assist or provide support for man's reason, not the other way around. Further, though these Founders believed that reason and revelation mostly agreed, they also believed that some revelation was not legitimately given by God and had to pass the "reason" smell test to be true or part of the "higher" law that rules us and which no positive law could contradict.

In American jurisprudence, there are classified TWO categories of God-given law, not just the law of nature. The second category is the "law of nature's God," made reference to in the Declaration of Independence. If one reads the quotes Jonathan presents after the above section more carefully, such as the one by James Wilson (who spoke the second most frequently at the Constitutional Convention), one cannot totally agree that the Founding Fathers only recognized the "law of nature" by reason alone, and not the law of revelation. If Jonathan's statement that "'nature' by its very definition in the Founding era refers to what man can discover from reason as opposed to revelation" is true, then why did James Wilson say:

"But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God"?

Apparently, Wilson saw that the "law of nature" and the "revealed law" weren't contrary, but they were distinct, in order for there to be a law "natural and revealed."

The other two quotes presented along with Wilson's above, trace their origin to Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (the Hamilton quote that Jonathan presented is right out of Blackstone's four-volume book).

Some background on Blackstone:
His Commentaries on the Laws of England was required reading for law students in America until about the 1920s. The Founding Fathers praised and recommended his work (though the more rationalistic ones, and those peeved by English monarchy criticized his defense of the British Constitution and government), and it is obvious from the quotes above that the Founders quoted him as a chief authority on matters of law. Blackstone was the universally recognized legal authority in America, though they did not adopt the monarchy philosophy.

After Blackstone made the statement quoted by Hamilton above (in Jonathan's afore-mentioned post), he said this:

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to REASON; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. >PAY ATTENTION TO THIS STATEMENT:< And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor [Adam] before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error. This has given manifold occasion for the benign INTERPOSITION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT REVELATION. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found ONLY IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, UNTIL THEY WERE REVEALED, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the SAME ORIGINAL with those of with those of the law of nature, for their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the human law is (humanly speaking) of infinitely for more authority than what we generally call the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared for to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but till then, they can never be put in competition together." (1)

Now, before we can successfully examine this particular debate, some key terms must be defined. This step is perhaps the most essential in debating and deciding the truth on a "yes" or "no" issue. The general definition of "reason" seems to be well-established. It merely means thinking things through, utilizing logic, human experience, and common sense. The "clincher" term in this debate, however, is the term "revelation." This term, and its use, has been abused by the religious and "non-religious" throughout the centuries. Let me make clear that "revelation," in the sense that I shall use it, does NOT mean "knowledge and wisdom magically falling down from the sky." God simply does not just drop words on people, and expect them to blindly believe Him. When God spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament, they asked Him hard questions (Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Habakkuk did just that), and God did not strike them dead. He answered their questions. Now, as was sometimes true in their cases, God expects us to trust Him, even when we cannot fully comprehend what He is doing or why. But to trust in Him in such a circumstance is not to have blind faith, because experience clearly demonstrates that God has always been faithful and He always knew what He was doing. God never made a mistake in the (approximately) 6,000 years that mankind has inhabited this planet. To trust Him is to accept the evidence He has already given us of His goodness and faithfulness.

Revelation, in our case (the case of higher law and the source of good government) means, in my argument, the words of God revealed to mankind directly, and, as Blackstone said, are available to us "only in the holy scriptures." Most of the time, when the Founders referred to divine revelation, or the revealed law, they were referring to God's commandments and words to man as written in the Bible. We shall examine the Founders' writings on "divine revelation" and "revealed law" in order to determine the truth of the matter.

Now here is where skeptics of my belief may interject that some things in the Bible (accounts of the miraculous, the divinity of Jesus, His atonement, etc.) are beyond human reason, and therefore must pass the "smell test" of man's logical powers. But to say that our Founders enthroned man's brain above the Bible defeats the purpose of having a government of law. One understands this statement if one understands Blackstone's logic above. Mankind is not uniform in his reasoning; his reason is and is prone to distortion from many things -- often by natural human selfishness and bias (man simply does not have the ability to prolong his life that he may obliterate all his short-sightedness, selfishness, and prejudice, and humanity continues to make the same mistakes that he always did make, in spite of improvements in technology, hygiene, etc.). Men may reason on the same subject but come up with different conclusions. A good example of this is the Founding Fathers themselves when they discussed issues in collective assemblies. They were all very smart men, and tried to be as unbiased and indifferent as they could, but failed numerous times to ever agree on crucial issues. In fact, so heated did their debates get that even Benjamin Franklin, who (especially when a young man) never agreed with the idea of divine revelation, requested regular prayers at the Constitutional Convention, "humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings." (2)

The point is that mankind in general, no matter how much he reasons, will never agree on anything for certain, because every mankind's reason is not uniform. Absolute truth, and in our case, the source of absolute law, must therefore be derived from some other source than man's reason, though we should certainly utilize it ("Come, let us reason together, saith Jehovah" Isaiah 1:18). Law must ultimately come from God. God has revealed Himself directly in the Scriptures and (in the case of Christians) through the Holy Spirit, which confirms His word in the Scriptures, and God has revealed Himself indirectly through His creation and through history. With reason, humanity can discover God and come to know Him, but we will never comprehend Him, or understand the deep mysteries of law and government on reason ALONE; the "Father of Lights" must "illumine our understandings."

Absolute law ("higher law") must come from a more authoritative source than man, for as we have seen, even man's reason, though useful and essential to the protection of his rights, is reliant upon man's fallen nature. Any structure of government or human society that places man's reason at the top of the "authority ladder" is a government of man, because it is man's reason, and no higher authority, that makes the laws. Absolute, higher law, must come from a super-human being, a being without flaw, and that being would be GOD. His law is revealed in the Scripture, and this law is completely reasonable (but this does not mean that God's law must be subject to man's reason, because man does not know better than God does). In my next and soon-coming post, we shall see what the Founders said on this subject, and the answer to the question of "Did the Founders base their ideology on reason alone, on revelation, or on both?" will determine whether America really is a government of man or of Law. The answer to this question will also decide whether Christianity or secular humanism is a more rational belief system, based upon the experiment of American government.

Stay tuned!

In Case My Blog Is Getting Old and Boring ...

2007-07-27T18:03:00.000-07:00

I know, I know. It has been over a week, and I have not posted anything new on this blog. But allow me to excuse myself. I have been busy with other things besides blogs (I don't exactly LIVE in front of my computer, although my family may object a little to that statement), but I haven't had the time to sit down and concentrate on any one particular subject.

But in the mean time, just in case this blog is getting boring because it is taking me forever to update it, I suggest you go to my other blogs: Alexander Hamilton Patriot and Meet the Founding Founders. These blogs deal with subjects that aren't as heavy as the ones discussed here, but they are along the same general line as this one. Lately, the Alexander Hamilton Patriot and Meet the Founding Founders have seen quite a bit of traffic ... and have their share of brand new controversy. View the comments sections here and here, and you will see what has been keeping me from writing posts! If you have any input to offer to these discussions, by all means participate!

I do have several posts in the making, one of which I began writing before the "debates" started, and now I must finish it, because it is relevant to the very issues that this debate revolves around. So stay tuned! More is coming on this blog, but if it hasn't been updated in a while, visit my others ... or simply look at the comments sections. Lately, there has never been a dull moment.

What is a Principled Government, Anyway?

2007-07-18T14:25:00.000-07:00

Dana of Principled Discovery, whom I link to on this blog, has launched a blog carnival: the carnival of principled government. Bloggers may submit essays for this carnival here. Dana says:

"Entries should uphold the founding principles of the United States, either directly or indirectly and may focus on historic or current events, trends or ideas. The specific principles are outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and our other founding documents. The basic principles are:
Representational government
Unalienable rights (life, liberty, property)
Limited government
Local control
Personal responsibility."

WHAT IS A PRINCIPLED GOVERNMENT, ANYWAY?

Every government has been created and is maintained upon some sort of principle or other. Every government and every society of men have a governing principle, whether that principle be the superiority of an individual, or of an elite group of individuals, or the masses. But a "principled government" assumes that there is a higher principle of justice that comes from a higher source than man's own dictation. Every sensible man will agree that justice is the true end and aim of government; but, especially in complex situations, who is to decide what is just and unjust? Who is the ultimate authority? Our Founding Fathers obviously had the answer to that question, because the form of government that they established has been the most successful form of government in the history of the world. One of our greatest Founding Fathers (IMHO) and a Framer of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, put down the Founders' answer to that question very eloquently and concisely (read the following with the preamble of the Declaration of Independence in mind):

To grant that there is a Supreme Intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of His creatures, and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears, to a common understanding, altogether irreconcilable.
Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.
This is what is called the law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligations to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”—Blackstone.
Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind: the Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which to discern and pursue such things as were consistent with his duty and interest; and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.
Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty; nor the least authority to command or exact obedience from him, except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.
Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled, and must be liable to such limitations as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to intrust, is to violate that law of nature which gives every man a right to his personal liberty, and can therefore confer no obligation to obedience.
“The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature, but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.”—Blackstone. (1)

This is the foundation for all government, and it delineates why the Founders chose a representative form of government. This selection from the Founders' own writings proves indisputably that the Founding Fathers REJECTED the thinking of the secular humanists of the Enlightenment, and instead adopted a Biblical worldview of creation and man's accountability before Almighty God and His laws.

It must be observed that the Founders, though they believed that government is for the protection of the rights of individuals and for the protection of the innocent and vulnerable, knew that government must be limited to its proper proportion. This principle was grounded in the Founders' belief that man, without sufficient moral restraints, will abuse his power in order to enrich and empower himself, and that he will trample over other men's rights in the process of enriching and empowering himself. The Founding Fathers knew that government would not perform its duties out of the mere goodness and reasonability of the men in office; they held the Biblical belief that mankind is a "fallen creature" with a selfish nature. Therefore, they framed the United States Constitution in 1787 in order to prevent (as much as possible) the complete abuse of power by the federal government.

A limited federal government seems, however, to be a far cry from the trend that it has been and is taking as of late. But a good step that ordinary Americans can take to help set it in the right direction, in order to amend, or at least, limit this trend is to change our political mentality. Most Americans are raised from Day One in a government-owned and government-controlled system, commonly known as the "public school system," which imparts to American citizens the mentality that the government is there to serve them (because America is supposed to be a "democracy"). Not a bad mentality, one might say. But, in the words of former U.S. President Gerald Ford, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have." We must understand that government must be limited to the roll of protecting the basic rights of mankind, and not given the roll of expanding the "rights" of Americans. Expanding the definition of "human rights" in order to merge it with the definition of "privilege" is neither just nor beneficial. In our American experience, it has proved to be deadly. Now, simply by thinking that MORE government involvement in the private lives of private citizens (our health, food, education, property, etc.) is a good thing, we and our posterity are paying the dear sacrifice for our folly. Sadder is the fact that our forefathers, who fought on the battlefields of the Revolution, worked so hard to prevent this very thing from occurring.

Government is not, in of itself, a curse upon human nature; but it is precarious. It is essential to human society, but it must carefully watched and guarded. The Founding Fathers relied heavily upon the fact that such would be the mentality of the majority of future Americans. Because the Founders created the federal government to "govern" the state governments, and not the individual citizens of America, the Founders recognized and relied upon the influence of local governments -- the level of government which is the most accountable to "we, the people." Americans must recognize the indispensability of their local governments in order to insure that their state government, and, to a considerable degree, the federal government, are also held accountable.

For this reason, those who wish to bring the federal government out of the bounds that were set for it by the Constitution have worked overtime to either diminish the significance of local government in national affairs, or have tried to corrupt the local government along with the federal government (made possible largely by "grant money"). Any candidate for public office who does not have the nerve to stand up against this "legalized" bribery should be shoved off his platform and given no support for public office.

This train of thought, of course, brings us to realize the personal responsibility of the individual citizens of the United States. If we are to hold our government accountable to a moral standard, we need to hold ourselves accountable to a moral standard. In a day and age in which people dispute over what is right and what is wrong morally (it has come to the point where the very existence of right and wrong are in dispute), who is to decide what is moral or immoral? Our Founding Fathers believed that the Christian religion was the only pure source of pure morals, and therefore Christianity is essential to our form of government. President George Washington warned posterity in his "Farewell Address" :

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. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

And President John Adams forcefully declared to America before a company of Massachusetts militia:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. So, here is my own submission. It addresses the issue of over-grown federal government, and discovers the solution through covering each of the above basic principles in their order. (2)

Americans must realize that it is not the responsibility of the government to maintain us; we must maintain it. Our government can be free from corruption only if corruption-free people maintain it consistently and zealously. President James Garfield once declared:

Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces. (3)

The solution to fixing the problems of a bloated and corrupt government lie within the education, character, patriotism, and resolution of "we, the people."

"Let An Association Be Formed": Part Two

2007-07-07T15:11:00.000-07:00

At last, everyone! Part Two of "Let An Association Be Formed ..." is now here! I apologize for the delay.

As discussed in "Let and Association Be Formed": Part One, Alexander Hamilton proposed a "Christian Constitutional Society" for the purpose of defending the Christian religion and the United States Constitution, which, as demonstrated in my last post, Hamilton believed were the sacred foundations of the American republic.

As illustrated in the quotes previously presented, Hamilton believed that these two foundations of American freedom were being threatened by the growing influence of atheist/humanist philosophy that was predominant in France and was gaining influence in America. More discouraging to Hamilton was the fact that his own party -- the Federalist Party -- which had largely resisted these foreign influences and which, from the very beginning of their existence as a party, had been the main supporters and Framers of the Constitution, now were willing to turn to corrupt men who promised to give power back to the Federalists.

One of these corrupt men was Aaron Burr. Hamilton and Burr had been personally acquainted ever since the careers of both men in law and politics first began, and it was clear to Hamilton -- and to everyone who knew Burr -- that he was an immoral, deistic, and perhaps even an atheistic man, who had defied the Constitution, opposed its ratification, and had been an open supporter of the Jacobins. Hamilton was shocked and saddened by the fact that the Federalists would support their own enemy in a misguided attempt to regain national influence.

Hamilton believed that it was necessary for those with the true Federalist principles at heart to unite and organize themselves and use whatever means which were in their power to reinstate those Federalist principles, not necessarily the Federalist Party. After contemplating the matter for apparently a considerable amount time Hamilton stated what he believed was the best solution, and wrote the following words to Bayard:

Dear Sir,
Your letter of the 12^th inst. Has relieved me of some apprehension. Yet it is well that it should be perfectly understood by the truly sound part of the Federalists, that there do in fact exist intrigues in good earnest, between several individuals not unimportant, of the Federal Party, and the person in question [Burr]; which are bottomed upon motives & views, by no means auspicious to the real welfare of the country. I am glad to find that it is in contemplation to adopt a plan of conduct. It is very necessary; & to be useful it must be efficient & comprehensive in the means which it embraces, at the same time that it must meditate none which are not reasonably constitutional & patriotic. I will comply with your invitation by submitting some ideas which from time to time have passed through my mind. Nothing is more fallacious than to expect to produce and valuable or permanent results, in political projects, by relying merely on the reason of men. Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals for the most part governed by the impulse of passion. This is a truth well understood by our adversaries who have practiced upon it with no small benefit to their cause. For at the very moment they are eulogizing the reason of men & professing to appeal only to that faculty, they are courting the strongest and most active passion of the human heart – VANITY!

It is no less true that the Federalists seem not to have attended to the fact sufficiently; and that they erred in relying so much on the rectitude and utility of their measures, as to have neglected the cultivation of popular favor by fair & justifiable expedients. The observation has been repeatedly made by me to individuals with whom I particularly conversed & expedients suggested for gaining good will which were never adopted. Unluckily however for us in the competition for the passions of the people our opponents have great advantages over us; for the plain reason, that the vicious are far more active than the good passions, and that to win the latter to our side we must renounce our principles and our objects, & unite with corrupting public opinion till it becomes fit for nothing but mischief. Yet unless we can contrive to take hold of and carry along with us some strong feelings of the mind we shall in vain calculate upon any substantial or durable results. Whatever plan we may adopt, to be successful must be founded on the truth of this proposition. And perhaps it is not very easy for us to give it full effect; especially not without some deviations from what on other occasions we have maintained to be right. But in determining upon the propriety of the deviations, we must consider whether it be possible for us to succeed without in some degree employing the weapons which have been employed against us, & whether the actual state & future prospect of things, be not such as to justify the reciprocal use of them. I need not tell you that I do not mean to countenance the imitation of things intrinsically unworthy, but only of such as may be denominated irregular, such as in a sound and stable order of things ought not to exist. Neither are you to infer that any revolutionary result is contemplated. In my opinion the present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes – rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments. By these general views of the subject have my reflections been guided. I now offer you the outline of the plan which they have suggested. Let an Association be formed to be denominated, "The Christian Constitutional Society." (1)

After seeing the problems with American government, politics, and society, Hamilton concluded that the only way to make the American people resistant to the pernicious political principles of the Jeffersonians was to impress upon the Americans "some strong feelings of the mind." Hamilton makes it clear that such "strong feelings of the mind" were to be found in Christianity. Hamilton observed through his own life's experiences and through history that Christianity is the only solid basis for morality in individuals, and therefore for society, and that morality is essential to any form of government, but it is especially essential to a free government. He also believed that because Christianity was the only solid basis for truth, it was then the only way to run a good form of government and a good society.

With this fact in mind, Hamilton's next statement becomes all the more interesting:

"Neither are you to infer that any revolutionary result is contemplated. In my opinion, the present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide, must we combat our political foes, rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments. By these general views of the subject have my reflections been guided. I now offer you the outline of the plan which they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society.' " (emphasis added) (2)

Why would no "revolutionary result" be contemplated by Hamilton if he wished to support the Christian religion? Because the very Constitution which established the nation's government was established upon several basic Christian principles (the depravity of man, the necessity for moral restraints, the ultimate source of law and the rule of law, etc). Hamilton saw that these principles were being lost in the mire of French humanism and party politics, and he saw the need for those who were truly attached to the principles of free government to organize themselves into a single but "federal" unit, which Hamilton titled the "Christian Constitutional Society."

Its objects, or goals, were to be, in Hamilton's words:

"1st. The support of the Christian religion.
2nd. The support of the Constitution of the United States."

Hamilton laid down its organization very briefly:

"1st. A council, consisting of a president and twelve members, of whom four and the president to be a quorum.
2d. A sub-directing council in each State, consisting of a vice-president and twelve members, of whom four, with the vice-president, to be a quorum.
3d. As many societies in each State as local circumstances may permit to be formed by the sub-directing council. The meeting at Washington [D. C.] to nominate the president and vice-president, together with four members of each of the councils, who are to complete their own numbers respectively." (3)

Hamilton than laid down the means in which the Societies would go about their work:

"1st. The diffusion of information. For this purpose not only the newspapers, but pamphlets, must be largely employed, and to do this a fund must be created; five dollars annually, for eight years, to be contributed by each member who can really afford it (taking care not to burthen the less able brethren)[2 Corinthians 8:13-14], may afford a competent fund for a competent term. It is essential to be able to disseminate gratis useful publications. Wherever it can be done, and there is a press, clubs should be formed, to meet once a week, read the newspapers, and prepare essays, paragraphs, etc.
2d. The use of all lawful means in concert to promote the election of FIT [notice he did not say either "Federalist" or "Republican"] men; a lively correspondence must be kept up between the different societies.
3d. The promoting of institutions of a charitable and useful nature in the management of Federalists. The populous cities ought particularly to be attended to; perhaps it would be well to institute in such places—1st, societies for the relief of emigrants; 2d, academies, each with one professor, for instructing the different classes of mechanics in the principles of mechanics and the elements of chemistry. The cities have been employed by the Jacobins to give an impulse to the country; and it is believed to be an alarming fact that, while the question of presidential election was pending in the House of Representatives, parties were organizing in several of the cities in the event of there being no election, to cut off the leading Federalists and seize the government.
The foregoing to be the principal engine, and, in addition, let measures be adopted to bring as soon as possible the repeal of the judiciary law before the Supreme Court; afterwards, if not before, let as many Legislatures as can be prevailed upon instruct their Senators to endeavor to procure a repeal of the repealing law. The body of New England, speaking the same language, will give a powerful impulse. In Congress our friends to propose little, to agree cordially to all good measures, and to resist and expose all bad. This is a general sketch of what has occurred to me. It is at the service of my friends for so much as it may be worth." (4)

In summary of Hamilton's plan, the Christian Constitutional Society would consist of many other smaller societies on the state and local levels, and the "headquarters" of the Society would be based in the nation's capitol, Washington, D. C. A glance at the politics of the time demonstrates the early significance of local and state politics to national politics, so it is not surprising that Hamilton would organize the society in this way. The purpose of this Society is reflected in its name "Christian Constitutional," because Hamilton said that its goals were to be, in order of importance, (1) "the support of the Christian religion" and the (2) "support of the Constitution of the United States." Hamilton saw two major ways to accomplish these ends. The first way was "the diffusion of information" among the American people. Hamilton knew and acknowledged that "Here, . . . the people govern," and that the ultimate destiny of the American nation lay within the hands of the people. But Hamilton also made the statement that

"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right." (5)

So Hamilton knew that in order for the body of the people to be stable, moral, orderly, and therefore, able to govern themselves, they must be well-informed and influenced by Christianity. But at the period in which Hamilton wrote this letter, the American people had been largely subject to the attacks of skepticism, and such attacks were not without their influence upon the people. Hamilton, as well as other Founders, were beginning to witness a slow decline in the Christian faith and morality of the people, and therefore, their ability to govern themselves. Since the whole American experiment of constitutional law rested with the people, the Founders knew that some way had to be found to restore the true spirit of the American Revolution to America.

In addition to being assured of the truth of the Christian religion, Hamilton knew that the people must also know the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, of whom Hamilton himself was one. The societies would not only defend Christianity before the public, but would also present the Framers' views on government and on a proper interpretation and use of the Constitution.

But merely informing the people was not enough. Our government also rests upon another aspect of American society, and that is the election of individuals to positions of public trust. The second way in which the Christian Constitutional Society was to operate was to "promote the
election of FIT men" -- most likely, those men who would support the goals of the Society.

The third operation of the Christian Constitutional Society centered on charities, that were to operate under the supervision of the Federalist members. The first aspect was for the "relief of emigrants," and the second was to establish academies "for instructing the different classes of mechanics in the principles of mechanics and the elements of chemistry." The professors of each academy would be appointed by the society. Hamilton wrote an "especially confidential"note to Bayard along with his letter, stating that this objective should be taken care of especially int he large cities, because Hamilton observed that the influence of the Jacobins was most dominant in those places. Hamilton continued:

And it is believed to be an alarming fact, that while the question of Presidential Election was pending in the House of R[epresentative]s, parties were organized in several of the Cities, in the event of their being no election, to cut off the leading Federalists and seize the Government. (6)

Not long after Hamilton sent this letter, he received a reply from Bayard:

April 25, 1802

Dear Sir:

I have considered with a great deal of attention the project recommended in your last letter, of connected associations in the different states for the support of our Constitution and religion. This plan is marked with great ingenuity, but I am not inclined to think that it is applicable to the state of things in this country. Such an association must be bottomed upon a stronger and more active principle than reason, or even a sense of common interest, to render it successful. There is more material for such an association upon the other side than upon ours. We have the greater number of political calculators, and they of political fanatics.

An attempt at such an association, organized into clubs, on the part of the federalists, would revive a thousand jealousies and suspicions which now begin to slumber.
Let us not be too impatient, and our adversaries will soon demonstrate to the world the soundness of our doctrines, and the imbecility and folly of their own. Without any exertion upon our own part, in the course of two or three years they will render every honest man in the country our proselyte.

A degree of agitation and vibration of opinion must forever prevail under a government so free as that of the Unites States. Under such a government, in the nature of things, it is impossible to fix public opinion. It is still left the exertions of good men to prevent infinite evils, to which the country is exposed from the selfish and ambitious intrigues of demagogues.

The President's party [Thomas Jefferson's "Republicans"] in Congress is much weaker than you would be led to judge from the printed state of votes. Here we plainly discern that there is no confidence, more the smallest amount of attachment prevails among them.

The spirit which existed at the beginning of the session is entirely dissipated: a more rapid and radical change could not have been anticipated.
An occasion is only wanting for Virginia to find herself abandoned by all her auxiliaries, and she would be abandoned upon the ground of her inimical principles to an efficient federal government.

Upon the subject of the judiciary, I have had an opportunity of learning of the opinions of the Chief Justice [John Marshall]. He considers the late repealing act [Judiciary Act of 1801] as operative in depriving the judges of all power derived under the act repealed.
The office still remains, which he holds to be a mere capacity, without a new appointment, to receive and exercises any new judicial powers which the legislature may confer. It has been considered here as the most advisable course for the circuit courts to pursue, will be at the end of their ensuing session to adjourn generally, and to leave what remains to be done to the Supreme Court. (7)

The Christian Constitutional Society seems to have never again appeared in Hamilton's papers, and apparently, the idea was put aside as a result of Bayard's letter.

The Christian Constitutional Society was, however, not the first attempt Hamilton had made to revive the religious zeal of America and to reinstate Christian principles and the Framers' original intent into American politics. In fact, several years before Hamilton proposed this Society, he made proposals for public days of humiliation, prayer, and fasting for the United States Congress and the American nation, as a result of impending world war and the encroachment of the pernicious principles of the French Revolution into our land. Hamilton made these proposals to Timothy Pickering and James McHenry, both of whom were personal friends and political allies of him, and, at the time that Hamilton made the proposals, were members of the Cabinet of President John Adams. Hamilton wrote as follows:

TO JAMES MCHENRY

March 22 (?), 1797.

MY DEAR FRIEND:

Take my ideas and weigh them of a proper course of conduct for our Administration in the present juncture.

You have called Congress. 'T is well.

When the Senate meets (which I should be glad to see anticipated), send a Commission Extraordinary to France. Let it consist of Jefferson or Madison, Pinckney, and a third very safe man, say, Cabot (or Jay).

Proclaim a religious solemnity to take place at the meeting of Congress. ... I am really, my friend, anxious that this should be your plan. Depend on it, it will unite the double advantage of silencing enemies and satisfying friends. (8)

TO TIMOTHY PICKERING

March 22, 1797.

DEAR SIR:

It is now ascertained that Mr. Pinckney has been refused, and with circumstances of indignity. What is to be done? The share I have had in the public administration, added to my interest as a citizen, makes me extremely anxious that at this delicate crisis a course of conduct exactly proper may be adopted. I offer to your consideration, without what appears to me ceremony, such a course.

First.—I would appoint a day of humiliation and prayer. In such a crisis this appears to me proper in itself, and it will be politically useful to impress our nation that there is a serious state of things—to strengthen religious ideas in a contest, which in its progress may require that our people may consider themselves as the defenders of their country against atheism, conquest, and anarchy. It is far from evident to me that the progress of the war may not call on us to defend our firesides and our altars. And any plan which does not look forward to this as possible, will, in my opinion, be a superficial one. (9)

TO TIMOTHY PICKERING

NEW YORK, March 29, 1797.

DEAR SIR:

... I am also desirous of impressing the public mind strongly by a religious solemnity, to take place about the meeting of Congress. I also think the step intrinsically proper. (10)

TO TIMOTHY PICKERING

NEW YORK, March 17, 1798.

DEAR SIR:

... I would ... have the President to recommend a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. The occasion renders it proper, and religious ideas will be useful. I have this last measure at heart. (11)

TO THEODORE SEDGWICK

ALBANY, MARCH 1-15, 1798

... Let the President also call to his aid the force of religious Ideas by a day of fasting, humiliation, & prayer. This will be in my opinion no less proper in a political than in a Religious View. We must oppose to political fanaticism religious zeal. (12)

Perhaps Hamilton would have carried through with the establishment of the Society, had he not died two years later in his tragic duel with Aaron Burr. But for now, posterity can only wonder and admire his idea. Perhaps someone will have the inspiration to take on Hamilton's idea for the betterment of America and the Founders' vision. But for now, it is our duty as Americans to carry on in the spirit of the American Revolution -- this spirit will be the subject of an upcoming post, now that we have passed the 231st anniversary of our national independence. The reasons for the American Revolution are important to discuss and understand, because we may not have our national sovereignty and independence for very long.

For more on Hamilton and Christianity, click here for information available on my blog the Alexander Hamilton Patriot.

NOTES:
(1) The Works of Alexander Hamilton (edited by Henry Cabot Lodge), vol. 10
(2-4) Same
(5) Robert Yates' version of Hamilton's June 18, 1787 speech before the Constitutional Convention -- The Works of Alexander Hamilton (edited by H. C. Lodge), vol. 1
(6) same as note #1
(7) The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (edited by H. C. Syrett and J. E. Cooke), vol. 25, pp.613-614
(8-11) The Works of Alexander Hamilton (edited by H. C. Lodge), vol. 10
(12) The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (edited by H. C. Syrett and J. E. Cooke), vol. 21, pp. 362-363

Happy Independence Day!

2007-07-04T15:45:00.000-07:00

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!

Today marks the 231st anniversary of American Independence. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress voted unanimously to adopt the final draft of the Declaration of Independence, which it had approved just two days earlier on July 2nd. But Congress did not sign that document (they had to prepare an engrossed copy, the one with which we are familiar) until August 2 of that year. Hence, some of the men who voted for the Declaration were not present to sign it in August because they were called away from Congress in order to serve the military/government needs of their own states. For instance, Robert R. Livingston of New York was one of the five men (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Livingston) on the committee which drafted the Declaration, but though he voted for it on July 4, he was called away to his state before he could sign it on August 2.

After Congress adopted the draft on the second of July, John Adams, who not only had been a fellow-drafter with Thomas Jefferson of that document, but had also been responsible for bulldogging for it in Congress (earning him the title "the Atlas of Independence" from one of his colleagues), wrote to his wife Abigail Adams that the second of July

"will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion
to God Almighty."

Although most Americans think of the Fourth of July as a day to blow up firecrackers (our teenage neighbors celebrate this ritual quite heartily into the night), that day was both animating and yet somber for the men who supported that document. Today's American Minute sums up the moment:

American Minute with Bill Federer

July 4

The Declaration of Independence was approved JULY 4, 1776.

John Hancock signed first, saying "the price on my head has just doubled."

Benjamin Franklin said "We must hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately."

Of the 56 signers: 17 lost their fortunes, 12 had their homes destroyed, 5 became prisoners of war, 1 had two sons imprisoned on the British starving ship Jersey, 1 had a son killed in battle, 1 had his wife die from harsh prison treatment and 9 signers died during the War.

As Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

John Adams said:

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."

Adams continued:

"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration...Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory... Posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we [may regret] it, which I trust in God we shall not."

This is the ultimate American holiday, because our forefathers did the most honorable thing that civil statesmen have ever done in the history of the world (to re-quote Sam Adams, the "Father of the American Revolution"):

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

Here are some documents I heartily recommend to all Americans. These must be read in order to understand the ideals of American liberty.

I will close with the words of John Quincy Adams, son of John and Abigail Adams and a true son of the American Revolution:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Happy Independence Day!

I'm "It!"

2007-06-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks as if I am "it" in the bloggers' game of "tag." Mrs. Mecomber of the New York Traveler sneaked up behind me when I wasn't lookin' and tagged me! Only in this game, the tagged blogger doesn't stand still. He has an excuse to write another post! So, I am going to first introduce the rules of the game, and then, I will introduce my most humble self.

1. Let others know who tagged you.
2. Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
3. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
4. Players should tag 8 other people and notify them they have been tagged.
The above rules need to be posted.

Ok, here I go!

Fact #1: I was born in Upstate New York, I have always lived in Upstate New York, and have never traveled beyond the boundaries of Upstate New York save once. When I was about 5 years old, my family and I went to Massachusetts for approximately six hours. Despite the fact that I was very young, I can still remember the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG drive, probably because of how difficult it was for such a rambunctious youngster to stay locked up in a car for several hours! I remember the times we stopped the car from time to time, and I had the glorious opportunity to get out of my VERY uncomfortable car seat and stretch my legs. From time to time, I would also get the chance to ride on the floor for five minutes at a time on top of a spotted "leopard blanket," called so because it was made to look like leopard's hide.
And then was our stop at Boston. I can still distinctly remember walking up to the city's port, where I got the one-time-in-my-life-look at the Atlantic Ocean. I can remember my mother telling me that this was the very harbor where the Boston Tea Party took place. Being only five years old, I was not the history-expert that I am now :D , but I knew that the Boston Tea Party was an event that led to American independence and even at such an early age it was a thrill to be there (for all I know, I was BORN waving the American flag). We then boarded a ship in the harbor and (no, didn't go sailing) watched a seal show inside. After that I can remember going to a huge, HUGE Boston aquarium, and I remember walking in one room and seeing a jellyfish. I also recall seeing dolphins and little sharks (but to a 5-year-old, they looked pretty big).

Fact #2: I love animals. I have always loved animals, and right now, I and my family have four pets: 2 cats, a bird, and a dog. Thankfully, these pets are kept SEPARATE from one another. If we had not been so smart, we would have ended up in a scenario in which the bird is pursued by the cats who are pursued by the dog who is pursued by the frantic children who are hollered at by mother! We love our pets and take very good care of them, and enjoy their sometimes eccentric behavior (except at 3 in the morning!) in spite of their naughtiness. But, being the adorable little things that they are, they get away with most of it.

Fact #3: I am a Christian and I have been blessed with a Christian home, church, and a Christian church school that operates upon the homeschooling principle. I have enjoyed the benefits that most children going to public schools have really never been able to enjoy. I have been largely protected from the decaying culture, I am receiving a good education, I love to learn, and I have a close family. God is so good! I am interested in subjects such as Bible prophecy, apologetics, and the way in which the Bible applies to the realm of civil government. My interest in my country and its foundations is intertwined in with my zeal for Christian principles, and I am fascinated with the fact that this was the case of our Founding Fathers. To anyone interested in knowing the truth of Christianity, I would advise the books Why I Believe, by Dr. D. James Kennedy and The Case for Christ, by Lee Stroebel, who was once an atheist journalist for the Chicago Tribune, but who became a believer in Christ after using his skill of journalism to investigate the Christian religion. His book The Case for Christ is his story of how that happened as well as a thorough investigation of the arguments for and against Christianity.

Fact #4: The kind of "celebrities" that I esteem are quite unusual for most people. Someday I would like to meet David Barton of Wallbuilders, a group that has been a leader in the forefront of the movement to combat the historical revisionism that has been dominant in the 20th century. I have heard that he has a humongous library comprising thousands of volumes of original manuscripts, rare books and writings of the Founding Fathers, including some of the Bibles they owned personally! This is a bit ambitious, perhaps, but no one except God can predict every detail in the future for certain! Also in my "Hall of Fame" are the Founding Fathers. Those who are in my top 10 are (IMHO): George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Witherspoon, James Madison, and Elias Boudinot. These guys are more worthy of the esteem and imitation of modern Americans than movie stars and baseball players.

Fact #5: I consider myself a Hamiltonian Federalist. Now, this does not mean that I support powerful federal government (it is WAY over-bloated already), and this does not mean I support the Federal Reserve or the like. Hamilton's views have been really twisted, and he is being given all the credit for the problems in American government today. I hold Hamilton's REAL views on a government of LAW (neither a democracy nor an aristocracy), a FEDERAL government, state governments that mind their own business and tend to it INDEPENDENTLY, and his stress and practice of the hard work ethic that has made American society successful. IMHO, Hamilton was over all a great guy, but the establishment of a privately-owned bank, funded by foreigners and operating upon the fractional-reserve principle is a best a bad idea. Unfortunately, Hamilton has reaped for himself a bad name among posterity for this idea. And so, despite the fact that Jefferson and I have VERY little in common, (due in a large degree to his "Franco-fanaticism" and his inexcusable inconsistency and lack of principle) I must agree with him in this case, that private banks running the nation's money ought to be avoided. Hamilton's political philosophy ought to be talked about more than his economic philosophy (which was established with good intentions and even justifiable opinions), because his economic philosophy is being used by Federal-Reserve lackies to promote an agenda and system of which Hamilton would have NEVER approved. Such engines of tyranny and injustice such as the income tax and fiat money (which our currency has been virtually reduced to) and the confiscation of gold, etc. from the American people, would have been bemoaned by Hamilton. I think that his principles of federal government (neither unitary nor confederate) deserve the study and imitation of Americans, because they are founded upon a Scriptural basis, and not upon a Humanistic one.

Fact # 6: I love to read and write and research, but to much sitting down is not good for me. I love the active lifestyle too, and my siblings find me LOTS of fun!!! We love to run around and play till we drop from exhaustion. Not surprisingly, a love for the American Revolution is for me a love of GUNS! No, I don't own a firearm, but we love to play with realistic-looking ones (realistic, only those bright orange caps at the tips so we don't scare our lily-livered neighboring government agents out of the Pentagon).

Fact # 7: I love to read of the adventurous lives of Christian heroes of the past. This includes the Founding Fathers, of course, but it also includes missionaries. Many of the missionaries that have been in my "Hall of Fame" include Gladys Aylward (missionary to China), Hudson Taylor (pioneered the missionary movement in China), David Livingstone (pioneer missionary to Africa), David Brainerd (American missionary to the Native Indians), Samuel Kirkland (missionary to the Iroquois of New York State), Amy Carmichael (missionary to India). I have no career as of yet, but I have always dreamed of being a missionary or a preacher -- something along those lines. If not, I have always hoped that perhaps I could be useful in public office in my country. America needs people who have both the information and the uncompromising passion in this nation's heritage, especially it's godly heritage, in public office.

Fact # 8: Eighth fact? Fact: I am running out of facts. Uuuuuuhhh..... OH! I love to blog! I love to be creative! I like designing blog templates, I love drawing pictures, I love creativity in music, and I love to write books! Someday I hope to write a few books on the very subjects dealt with by my blogs, which can serve as resources, but they would never be able to hold all the information I have gathered in the way that a book can. So until I can write books, I will content myself with my blogs.

Well, those are eight facts, but here comes the real challenge: trying to find eight other bloggers to tag! Ho boy.....

Kim C. at Life in a Shoe has a cute little blog, maybe she won't mind ...

Strikeslip at Fault Lines is a pretty smart guy; I'd like to know more about him.

The "21st Century Cicero" at Friends of the American Revolution is an interesting person whom I would like to know more about, and I like his blog.

The US History Blog is interesting, and I am curious about the anonymous person who runs it.

John Manship, Sr., who is a Christian who travels around the country as "General George Washington," and runs the blog The Spirit of George Washington Lives! (in addition to his tons of other blogs) is also a person I would like to learn more about (when he is most able to tear himself away from his busy schedule).

Let's see ... 5 down, three to go!

J. L. Bell at Boston 1775 is quite the historian! Maybe he could give his fellow patriots some of his own self-history!

The Christian lady who runs the blog Principled Discovery has a lot of good things to say, and therefore I would like to know more about her.

And last but not least, P. A. Madison at The Federalist Blog, which is a very informative and thought-provoking blog which deals with the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, is someone who would be nice to hear from.

And to Mrs. Mecomber: No grudges; thanks for tagging me. :)

The Problem with Pseudo-Historians

2007-06-21T08:27:00.000-07:00

The problem with pseudo-historians is simply that -- they are PSEUDO-HISTORIANS!!! While browsing a blog I like -- the New York Traveler -- I found this interesting post and picture:

This is the cover of a DVD of a documentary that was broadcasted by A&E. The title is "John and Abigail Adams: Love and Liberty," which apparently explores the life and relationship of John Adams (second president of the United States) and his incredible wife Abigail Adams. Ahhh, but there is apparently a problem with this picture (one that I have noticed often in history documentaries): the man on the cover is NOT John Adams. Well, sure; that's his NAME, but it's not THE John Adams. It's John QUINCY Adams, the SON of John and Abigail.

So if you think that you've become a great history expert by watching such crumby "crock"-umentaries and reading the books the historians who produce them write ... think again.

Just thought I'd give history buffs another reason not to trust mainstream documentaries.

The Importance of a Godly Education to American Liberty

2007-06-01T10:25:00.000-07:00

Education is the foundation on which all nations and confederacies rest their prosperity. The United States of America has risen to be one of the greatest nations in the world because of its Godly foundations and an educational system originally rooted and grounded in the Bible. Education involves more than the memorization of facts; it molds the mind and the character of an individual so that he may serve his Creator and his fellow man. When this nation was established, and America’s Founding Fathers drafted our official founding documents, and when the first stages of the government under the Constitution were only in their infancy, the Founding Fathers sought to carry on the principles for which they had fought so hard during the fight for independence. They had bled on the fields of the Revolution, frozen and starved in their winter camps, tackled the questions of government, law, and society; sweated out the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention, and fought to persuade the states of America to ratify that document. Yet after such great efforts and successes, a greater struggle lay ahead of them: How do we preserve, and influence our descendants to preserve, the liberty we have fought so hard to establish? The Constitution, founded on the Declaration of Independence (the thesis of which is that our rights are derived and given to mankind by God the Creator), is founded on the principles of the Bible. But how can we be sure that we will still retain those rights if we think that we are not accountable to God, and hence entrust ourselves to man? How can we be certain that our descendants will adhere to and respect the Christian religion? For the sake of the Union, the Founders endeavored to ensure the preservation of the principles of liberty for the rest of their lives, and their words continue to urge and inspire others to do the same. The answer to these questions is this: educate and enlighten the generations of Americans that will follow. But what is education? How was it important to the Founders? And how did they take part in it? Should education have anything to do with Christianity? I shall answer all these questions in the following, and thus I shall prove that the future generations of the United States must receive a God-centered and Scripture-based education in order for America to exist and progress as a truly free and independent nation.

If education is important to the American Republic, we should first understand the purpose and intent of education. We know that education is the obtaining of knowledge, but is this all that education involves? And what is knowledge? Since God is the Author of knowledge, He has something to say to mankind about education and learning in His Word. The Book of Proverbs is known for its wealth of true wisdom, and the format for its teaching is as a parent instructing his children in the ways of wisdom and the fear of God. The Fausset’s Dictionary says, “The Book of Proverbs inculcates on parents, as to their children, the duty of disciplinary instruction and training in the word of God. This was the ONE book of national education in the reformations undertaken by Jehoshaphat and Josiah” (Fausset). Here it is clear that, according to the culture that was set up by God for the Israelites at that time, education did not just deal with reading, writing, arithmetic, and so on. Education also involves the engraving of a youth’s heart and character to fear God. To illustrate this, let us look at some quotations from Proverbs. In the introduction to the book, it explains its purpose, one of which was, “To give prudence to the naive, to the youth knowledge and discretion” (Proverbs 1:4 NASV). Here we have a clear picture of education. It is to give knowledge and discretion to the youth. In the same passage, the author of the Proverbs makes another enlightening statement concerning the obtaining of knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 states, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (LITV). In the Book of Deuteronomy, God says through Moses to the Israelites before Moses would leave them, “Be on your guard! Make certain that you do not forget, as long as you live, what you have seen with your own eyes. Tell your children and your grandchildren about the day you stood in the presence of the LORD your God at Mount Sinai, when He said to me, 'Assemble the people. I want them to hear what I have to say, so that they will learn to obey me as long as they live and so that they will teach their children to do the same' ” (Deuteronomy 4:9-10 GNB). God obviously sees it as important that the parents should walk in the fear of God and that they should teach their children to do the same. The Lord further instructed the Israelites in Deuteronomy 11:18,19, and 21: "Remember these commands and cherish them. Tie them on your arms and wear them on your foreheads as a reminder. Teach them to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you are resting and when you are working. Then you and your children will live a long time in the land that the LORD your God promised to give to your ancestors. You will live there as long as there is a sky above the earth” (GNB). From these verses we can most evidently see that there is much more to education and learning than having knowledge about the temporal things of this world, because we all have a Creator who has a special plan for each and every individual human being born on this earth; therefore, we are obligated to know Him and to serve Him and to fulfill the purpose for which He has called us. The Founding Fathers knew the meaning, intent, and purpose of education, and their views on it do not at all differ from that of the Scriptures. Noah Webster, in his English Dictionary, defined education this way: “The bringing up, as of a child; instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable, and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties” (Webster). Likewise, Samuel Adams stated, “[E]ducation . . . . leads youth beyond mere outside show [and] will impress their minds with a profound reverence of the Deity . . . . It will excite in them a just regard to Divine revelation." Gouverneur Morris, the penman and a signer of the United States Constitution, stated that there are “two distinct kinds of education.” The first, he said, was the “education of the head,” or informal learning. The second was the “education of the heart,” or the inculcation of “virtuous habits.” Morris stated that the former was the main task of schools, and that “parents and preachers” cultivated the latter. He further emphasized that “religion and virtue” were of more importance than informal learning. George Washington also described education in America. When a group of Delaware Indian chiefs brought several of their youths to Washington for the purpose of educating them in American schools, he listed what was being principally taught in those schools. He said to them, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and our way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and a happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." William Samuel Johnson, a signer of the Constitution and the first president of Columbia University, at a graduation ceremony of that university, announced: “You have … received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country. . . . Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present in your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct." Finally, Daniel Webster, a United States senator, one of America’s greatest statesmen, and a student of the Founding Fathers, summed up and defined education in a manner identical to those previously illustrated by the Founders and the Bible: “The attainment of knowledge does not comprise all which is contained in a larger term of education. . . . [A] profound religious feeling is to be instilled and pure morality inculcated under all circumstances." Truly, the Bible and the Founding Fathers left a very clear meaning on the definition and purpose of education.

Godly education is the key to the success and longevity of a nation. The Bible declares it, and the Founding Fathers recognized and respected it. Psalm 127 says: “If Jehovah does not build the house, they who build it labor in vain; if Jehovah does not keep the city, the one keeping it stays awake in vain. It is in vain for you to rise early, sit up late, to eat the bread of toils; for so He gives His beloved sleep. Behold! Children are an inheritance of Jehovah; the fruit of the womb is His reward. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the sons of the young. Blessed is the man who has filled his quiver with them; they shall not be ashamed, for they shall speak with their enemies in the gate” (LITV). This psalm illustrates the efforts of a community will not last long unless they fear God and pass on His precepts to the preceding generations. Since children are a gift from God, we have a responsibility before God to train them up to know, love, and serve Him. When that responsibility is accomplished, God’s blessing will be upon that community as long as they follow that pattern of unity, godliness, and righteous education. Then, the labor of men to protect and preserve that community will not be in vain. God also instructed the Israelites through Moses: “Be on your guard! Make certain that you do not forget, as long as you live, what you have seen with your own eyes. Tell your children and your grandchildren about the day you stood in the presence of the LORD your God at Mount Sinai, when he said to me, 'Assemble the people. I want them to hear what I have to say, so that they will learn to obey me as long as they live and so that they will teach their children to do the same.' . . . I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you today that, if you disobey me, you will soon disappear from the land. You will not live very long in the land across the Jordan that you are about to occupy. You will be completely destroyed. The LORD will scatter you among other nations, where only a few of you will survive” (Deut. 4:9-10, 26-27, GNB). In the New Testament, God continues to express the necessity of teaching children in the Scriptures; for example, when the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, he said, “[A]nd you remember that ever since you were a child, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15, GNB). That is why God instructs children to "[r]espect your father and your mother, so that you may live a long time in the land that I am giving you” (Ex. 20:12, GNB). And again , “Children, it is your Christian duty to obey your parents, for this is the right thing to do. ‘Respect your father and mother’ is the first commandment that has a promise added: ‘so that all may go well with you, and you may live a long time in the land’ ” (Eph. 6:1-3, GNB). There are many, many other Scriptures that instruct children, or instruct parents how to teach their children; the Scriptures consistently command us to “remember our Creator” in the days of our youth (Ecclesiastes 12:1). Truly, God does see education as the key to the success of any community, whether it is a nation, or a city, or any other. The Founding Fathers also understood that education was important to the American republic, and their writings echo the theme of the Bible concerning education. Noah Webster explained, “The foundation of all free government and of all social order must be laid in families and in the discipline of youth. . . . The Education of youth, an employment of more consequence than making laws and preaching the gospel, … lays the Foundation on which both law and gospel rest for success . . . ." John Adams stated, “The social science will never be improved, until the people unanimously know and consider themselves as the foundation of power, and until they shall know how to manage it wisely and honestly. Reformation must begin with the body of the people, which can be done only, to effect, in their educations” (Adams, 540). And also, “A better system of education for the common people might preserve them long from such artificial inequalities as are prejudicial to society." Benjamin Rush, another prominent Founder, declared, “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue, there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments” (Barton, Original Intent, 153). After the American War for Independence, Dr. Rush explained, “We have changed our forms of government but it remains yet to effect a revolution in our principles, opinions, and manners so as to accommodate them to the forms of government we have adopted. This is the most difficult part of the business of the patriots and legislators of our country. . . .[E]ducation alone will render the American Revolution a blessing to mankind” (Barton, Rush). George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1797, declared, “[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that that national morality can prevail in exclusion to religious principle. . . . Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge” (Barton, Original Intent, 153). John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court observed, “I consider knowledge to be the soul of a republic, and as the weak and the wicked are generally in alliance, as much care should be taken to diminish the number of the former as of the latter. Education is the way to do this, and nothing should be left undone to afford all ranks of people the means of obtaining a proper degree of it at a cheap and easy rate” (Jay). James Madison most definitely perceived the essential link between education and liberty when he declared, “What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support?” (Madison, 380-81). Finally, Abraham Baldwin, a signer of the Constitution, powerfully asserted, “When the minds of the people in general are viciously exposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education." Certainly, the Bible and the Founders agree entirely on the principle of education to sustain America as a Godly republic.

Not only did the Founders stress the importance of education with words, but they acted upon that principle. Many of the Founding Fathers played influential and interesting roles in educational systems throughout the country. One of them was John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Christian minister. He served as president of Princeton University of New Jersey (which was a seminary for training and appointing ministers) from 1768-1776, and was responsible for tutoring James Madison, Gunning Bedford, Jr., Jonathan Dayton (all signers of the Constitution), and other Founders and statesmen (Barton, Original Intent, 432). During his term as president of Princeton, the students of that university were required to “attend worship in the college hall morning and evening at the hours appointed and shall behave with gravity and reverence during the whole service. . . . [T]here shall be assigned to each class certain exercises for their religious instruction suited to the age and standing of the pupils . . . and no student belonging to any class shall neglect them” (Barton, Original Intent, 83). Evidently, one of John Witherspoon’s most prominent services to his country was his educational role. Another Founder, Noah Webster, is well known for his educational role, particularly his authorship of numerous educational textbooks. Several of his many textbooks include his “Speller,” “Grammar,” and “Reader,” (parts of his large English book entitled A Grammatical Institute of the English Language), his Elements of Useful Knowledge, his Moral Catechism, A Federal Catechism, and his most celebrated work, the American Dictionary of the English Language (Webster). Noah Webster believed that, since America is a republic in which the ideals of self-government are the basis of its sustenance, education must be the tool which imparts those ideals to the succeeding generations of American citizens. He also believed that not only the schools, but also the parents must be involved in the education of their children (Webster). He stated, “All government originates in families, and if neglected there, it will hardly exist in society. … The foundation of all free government and of all social order must be laid in families and in the discipline of youth” (Webster). Noah Webster, prominent patriot and Founding Father, was just as much a patriot as an educator. Benjamin Rush, another prominent Founder, was another active educator in early America. Dr. Rush was the author of school textbooks, curriculum plans, commentaries on education and educational policies, as well as chiefly instrumental in founding five universities throughout the country (Barton, Rush). Among the numerous educational works of Benjamin Rush, On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic stands out. In this work, he insists upon the necessity of schools and other institutions of education to teach Christianity, which will enable students instructed in its precepts to be good citizens of the American republic. His other works include Thoughts Upon the Amusements and Punishments Which are Proper for Schools, and A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a Schoolbook. In both of these works, he explains that American education will only be prosperous if educators and the educational system reflect the example and teachings of Jesus Christ. The American public openly embraced these works (Barton, Rush). The five universities of which Rush was the chief founder were the College of Philadelphia, the University of the State of Pennsylvania, the Young Ladies’ Academy of Philadelphia (which was one of America’s first seminaries for women), Dickinson College (established as a “system of education in divinity”), and Franklin College (currently Franklin-Marshall College, and “built on Christ, the Corner-Stone”). Because Benjamin Rush had such a broad and influential role in American education, and was an early advocator of free public schools, he is known as the “Father of Public Schools Under the Constitution." Benjamin Rush believed that education in the principles of the Bible would keep the American society operating smoothly and successfully. He stated, “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be Republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible." Benjamin Rush was indeed, not only a great Founder and a firm patriot, but also a wise and brilliant educator. Alexander Hamilton was another prominent Founder who was actively involved in education, particularly within the state of New York. Hamilton became a member of the first Board of Regents of the State of New York, and he served it from 1784-1787. As a Regent, Hamilton helped raise funds for Columbia University, draft an educational plan for the university, and select its professors. From 1787 until his death in 1804, Hamilton served as a trustee of Columbia University (Alexander Hamilton, 44). Hamilton was also on the Special Regent’s Committee of 1787, and recommended changes in the educational law of New York State; changes such as the establishment of public schools by public authority and requiring that the Regents “visit and inspect all colleges, academies, and schools” which are established in New York State. During this meeting, Hamilton wrote in his notes: “[T]he erecting of public schools for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic is an object of very great importance which ought not to be left to the discretion of private men, but to be promoted by public authority: of so much knowledge no citizen ought to be destitute, and yet it is a reflection as true as it is painful, that but too many of our youth are brought up in utter ignorance." This shows that Hamilton understood the important link between the education of common American citizens and the sustenance of the American republic. Perhaps one of his most well-known educational accomplishments is his part in the establishment of the Hamilton-Oneida Academy (currently Hamilton College). Hamilton also served as a premier trustee of the academy from 1793 to 1804, and afforded great aid to the Reverend Samuel Kirkland in establishing it. With Hamilton’s help, Dr. Kirkland, a missionary to the Iroquois Indians of central New York, sought to establish several schools in the district of Clinton, New York, which would be established for the purpose of teaching the Indians “rudiments of English education”; and an academy in the same district where both English and Indian youth would be educated. In this academy, “English youth were to be admitted, bearing the charges of their own education,” and Indian youth were “to be instructed in the principles of human nature, in the history of civil society, . . . and in the principles of natural religion, the moral precepts, and the more plain and express doctrines of Christianity. Years later, these objects were still the goal of this college, as evidenced by a letter written in 1832 by David Malin to James Madison. In this letter, Mr. Malin informed Madison that Madison had been elected one of the honorary members of the Phi Gamma Adelpha Society of the Hamilton College Fraternity. Mr. Malin asked him to accept the appointment, since the main objects of the society were to promote “literature, friendship, and morality,” and Madison’s membership would aid in promoting these objects (Malin). Another Founder actively involved with education was Thomas Jefferson, being the chief founder of the University of Virginia, one of the accomplishments by which he wished to be most remembered. Besides this and many other influential actions in education in the state of Virginia, he was involved with at least three different school districts, and prepared a plan for each of them, making mandatory provision for the teaching of the Bible in those schools. Another Founder, Benjamin Franklin, also played a lively role in the educational system in his state of Pennsylvania. He wrote the 1749 plan of education for the public schools, and in that plan he made it mandatory for those schools to teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others." (This is very interesting behavior for a man who has been broadly considered a deist.) There is a seemingly infinite list of other Founders that were involved in education, including John Jay, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Abraham Baldwin, George Mason, William Samuel Johnson, and many, many others. But as we can see, the Founding Fathers, not only with their words but also with their actions, recognized the fact that education -- true education -- is crucial to the survival of the American republic.

Besides recognizing the importance of general education, the Founding Fathers fully intended to include religious teachings of the doctrines of Christ in the classrooms of public schools. They understood, as has been pointed out, the true meaning and purpose of education: to know and serve the Creator. America’s Founding Fathers not only defined education as such and were friendly to religious principles in education, but they personally promoted and supported Christian education in particular. We have observed in Noah Webster’s Dictionary, under the definition of ‘education,’ that he said “ to give them [children] a religious education is indispensable . . . ." This is also evident in Samuel Adams’ definition of education, as well as those of Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Rush, and William Samuel Johnson, as observed . Abraham Baldwin stressed the importance of both religion and education to the American republic and society, and strong support of this thesis is clear in George Washington’s illustration of American education. There are many more examples that illustrate this fact , but this is not all that the Founders did to ensure that the Christian religion would be recognized as an essential and indispensable part of education in this nation . The Founders repeatedly stressed the importance of religious education, and they took it seriously. This is proven by their actions in the educational sphere, and by their bold declarations ; however, in this they made even more concise and bolder arguments. Gouverneur Morris stated, “Genius and science are pleasing and ornamental, but morals and industry are useful and essential. Gouverneur Morris explained why religious education was of more importance than informal learning. He said “I cannot but believe, that if boys were taught to labor in some honest vocation, and girls to perform well the business of a family, they would have a better chance to become respectable men, happy women, good citizens, than if brought up in idleness and dissipation though with the learning of St. Paul. Those who can read have, indeed, the means of meditating on the Holy Writings; but do they improve the opportunity? If we look around us, we shall, I fear, meet frequently with loose poems, and idle novels, than with Bibles and sermons. Also, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the importance of religion and morality in education. In a letter to Peter Carr, a young man who was seeking his advice on the subject of his own education, Jefferson said that morality and religion should be among his primary objects. Of religion, Jefferson said that Carr must go to the Bible and examine it carefully, and to avoid prejudice or bias of any sort. He instructed Carr to examine truthfully all views and ends of the spectrum when he would come upon issues of question or doubt, and determine what is the truth. Noah Webster boldly declared, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. Fisher Ames, the man who wrote the final version for the wording of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, stated, “[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind." Benjamin Rush reflected the same opinion; he declared, “The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." It must be understood that the Founding Father’s idea of a “religious education” was not to train youth up to observe and emphasize a Christian culture, or to mold them into them mind-numbed robots that observed a set of religious rules. It was quite different. For example, Benjamin Rush again clarified not only the importance but also the significant meaning of religious instruction. He observed concerning the impact of the truth of God’s Word upon students: “The impressions which are made upon their [the students’] fears or their faith by sermons and creeds soon wear away, but arguments fixed in the understanding are indelible."

It is clear then, that in order for the American republic to last long and flourish, future generations in the United States must receive not only an informal education, but an education with the purpose of instructing children to remember their Creator in the days of their youth (Ecclesiastes 12:1), and realize that there is more to this life than what we can see or handle; more than birth, life, and death. As citizens of the Republic of the United States, we must all remember, as Benjamin Rush reminded us, “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue, there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." Today we live in a society in which the public education system is atheistic, humanistic, anti-God, and many times anti-moral. This system is degenerating into a vast anarchy-machine and it is taking this country with it, just as the Bible and the Founders warned. In order to save this country and the liberties that our forefathers fought to obtain and preserve, the best solution is to educate ourselves in the word of God, and pass these principles on to our children and our children’s children ourselves. The Scriptures and the circumstances make it clear to us that we are living in the last days, and such action is necessary, for the Bible commands us to do such. Let us remember the warning of the Scriptures, which say, “Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, while the evil days do not come, or the years strike when you shall say, I have no pleasure in them; while not yet the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, are darkened, or the clouds return after rain; in the day when those keeping the house shall tremble, and the strong men are bowed, and the grinders cease because they are few; and those looking out the windows are darkened; and the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the mill is low, and one rise up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of music are silenced; also they shall be afraid of a high place, and terrors in the way; and the almond tree shall blossom, and the locust makes himself a burden; and desire breaks, because man goes to his eternal home, and the mourners go about in the street; while the silver cord is not yet loosed, or the golden bowl is crushed, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern; then the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7, LITV). Let us also remember the warning given to us by Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution,” who said, “[A] state of indolence [laziness], inattention, and security . . . is forever the forerunner of slavery." Let us not allow ourselves to be taken into slavery, but to be sober and alert, “redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:16, LITV). “For this reason we must pay the much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it” (Hebrews 2:1, NASV).

Creationism: The Worldview of the Founding Fathers

2007-05-23T07:48:00.000-07:00

SPECIAL NOTICE: "Let An Association Be Formed': Part Two" is coming soon!

The United States of America has a government and a society, which, despite its recent decadent trend, has been the marvel and the envy of the world. American historians in all generations have examined the lives of the Founders, the inception and progress of the American War for Independence, and the foundation of our constitutional form of government with unceasing astonishment. But at the same time that all this praise has been heaped on the Founders and despite all the marvel expressed by thousands of American scholars, a huge debate has ensued over the question of whether the ideas of creationism (also known as "intelligent design") or evolution can more accurately, more scientifically, and more rationally explain the origin of life and the wonders of nature that we observe in the world around us.* Those who claim the side of evolution claim that they, and they only, promote the view of true science and rationality, and accuse (unjustly) their creationist counter-parts. Yet it is interesting to see in the most well-known writings of the Founding Fathers that their own side was undoubtedly with creationism; and what's more, it was this worldview that gave them the whole basis for the blessings of a free republican government. Examining the creationist views of our Founders will not only help us to see the basis for their political belief system, but the subject may itself contribute to the creationism vs. evolution debate.

One of the most obvious, and one of the most interesting evidences of the Founders' belief in creationism is found in America's birth certificate -- the first major and fundamental statement of our belief in political liberty -- the Declaration of Independence. In its preamble, it makes the resounding statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident [or clear to everyone by common sense]: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

There is no mistake upon reading this statement that the Founders believed that men were created by (guess who) a Creator! The whole idea of evolution was conceived in order to combat the idea of any Creator or Supreme Being existing, or at least, responsible for creating life and the world we live in.

The Declaration makes a another statement that is further antithetical to evolution "... all men are created equal... and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Individual human rights did not come into existence as man supposedly evolved; those rights always existed! If they had evolved along with man, that means man has invented them as he invented other ways of improving the quality of his life. And if mankind has invented his own rights, then he may take them away (namely, the rights of other human beings) arbitrarily in order to "improve" the quality of his own life, especially after he has discovered how well fit he is to survive. The whole concept of individuals having inalienable rights, then, is not only made void, but it cuts its own throat, because men cannot have inalienable rights if those rights come from himself; those rights must come from a higher power (i.e. a Creator, God). Evolution certainly does not teach that all men are equal; it teaches that certain men are, because of their evolution, inferior to other men. For instance, according to evolutionary theory, humans with black, yellow, or red skin are inferior, evolutionarily-speaking, to humans with white skin. Humans with large jaw-bones are inferior to men with smaller jaw-bones. The rich, wealthy, and sophisticated are more fit to survive than the poor, uneducated man. The list goes on and on. Perhaps not all evolutionists are racists, or would consider themselves as racists, but if they are consistent with evolutionary logic, white men are more highly evolved than others. (By pure chance, of course, Darwin was a white man of aristocratic English birth). These whites, therefore (as long as they are evolutionist), have the right to rule over, control, and even exterminate other lower evolutionary races in order to speed up the evolutionary process of higher races and to prevent the lower races from contaminating the universal gene pool (Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, founded the modern eugenics movement due to inspiration from reading Darwin's books)(1).

The Declaration of Independence is not the only writing in which the Founders expressed their creationist worldview; several of their writings in defense of the cause of the American Revolution point powerfully toward their belief.

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." -- Samuel Adams ("The Father of the American Revolution"), "The Rights of the Colonists" (1772)(2)

"Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind: the Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which to discern and pursue such things as were consistent with his duty and interest; and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.
"Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty; nor the least authority to command or exact obedience from him, except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.
"Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled, and must be liable to such limitations as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to intrust, is to violate that law of nature which gives every man a right to his personal liberty, and can therefore confer no
obligation to obedience." -- Alexander Hamilton, "The Farmer Refuted" (1775)(3)

"RESOLVED: That there are certain essential rights of the British Constitution of government, which are founded in the law of God and nature, and are the common rights of mankind; -- therefore, RESOLVED, That the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights." Samuel Adams, "Resolutions of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, October 29, 1765"(4)

"The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle, from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of unsurped authority. There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage." -- Reverend John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence), "Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" (1776) (5)

"That as the all wise dispensor of human blessings has favored no Nation of the Earth with more abundant, and substantial means of happiness than United America, that we may not be so ungrateful to our Creator; so wanting to ourselves; and so regardless of Posterity, as to dash the cup of beneficence which is thus bountifully offered to our acceptance." -- George Washington, "Farewell Address" (1796) (6)

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. This, sire, is our last, our determined resolution; and that you will be pleased to interpose with that efficacy which your earnest endeavours [sic] may ensure to procure redress of these our great grievances, to quiet the minds of your subjects in British America, against any apprehensions of future encroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony through the whole empire, and that these may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all British America!" -- Thomas Jefferson, "A Summary of the Rights of British America" (1774) (7)

"The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institution to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man ." -- Thomas Jefferson, "To Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824" (8)

Clearly, the Founding Fathers had a creationist worldview. Such a worldview did not result in silly religious superstition, but rather, in the form of a just government of law that we Americans enjoy today. Evolution, on the other hand, has given to mankind Communist dictatorships, the Nazi Party, the atom bomb, and the century in which Darwin's theory has thrived the most has become the century of cruelty and mass murder such as never recorded before in the history of the world. Only a belief in a good, loving, and all-powerful God who created mankind can be the solid basis of the security of humankind's rights.

*From my own observances of the arguments between creation and evolution, the debate between the elite scholars on both sides is not over which theory is more rational, more scientific, or more accurate; an objective look at the EVIDENCE leaves no room for evolution, except in the realm of IMAGINATION and exclusion of the FACTS. The most plausible explanation for something so intricately designed as living organisms is intelligent design, not random chance (for goodness' sake, we can't expect to spell intelligible four-letter words by chance; why expect the universe and life to come into existence by chance? -- especially when there is nothing but evidence to the contrary!). The only reason why evolution is accepted by a large majority of the modern elite is that it gives them a basis for their unbelief in the Gospel and a "rationalized" excuse to sin. Evolution, whether Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, or any other variation of evolution, is entirely philosophical; the only sure foundation of evolution is the sheer
ASSUMPTION that God does not and cannot exist, except in the imagination or conception of silly men.

The Foundation Forum

Good News from Oklahoma

An Important Perspective on September 11

Why Homeschool?

Commemorating the Inauguration of Barack Obama

Merry Christmas ...

The Real Story of the Founding Fathers and the Illuminati, Part 3

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Real Story of the Founders and the Illuminati, Part 2

The Real Story of the Founding Fathers and the Illuminati, Part 1

The Law of Liberty, Part 1

Constitution Day

Did the Founders Mean What They Said? Part One

The Declaration of Dependence

Part Three: The Motto of the American Revolution

Stay Tuned!

Mulligan's 8

AHI Inaugural Colloquium on Gerrit Smith and George Fitzhugh

Thoughts on Theocracy and America

Why I Support Ron Paul for President

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!

Friends of Liberty Blogroll

Part Two: An Un-Biblical Revolution?

What Do You Think, Mr. Webster?

Homeschooling: The Most Effective Way to Change this Nation

"Be It Resolved ..."

A Day to Remember

What Do We Mean by a "Christian Nation"?

Thoughts on Reason, Revelation, and the Bible

Reason v. Revelation? Part Two

Reason vs. Revelation? Part One

In Case My Blog Is Getting Old and Boring ...

What is a Principled Government, Anyway?

"Let An Association Be Formed": Part Two

Happy Independence Day!

I'm "It!"

The Problem with Pseudo-Historians

Recommended Reading List

The Importance of a Godly Education to American Liberty

Creationism: The Worldview of the Founding Fathers