The Foundation Forum

Good News from Oklahoma

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:00:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:00:00 +0000

(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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:29:00 +0000

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 ...

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:09:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:15:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 03:49:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:47:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:04:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:07:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:37:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:16:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:09:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:52:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:36:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:46:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:05:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:32:00 +0000

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 ..."

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:30:00 +0000

... 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.