Tag Archives: Separation of Church and State

Dissecting the Argument for Traditional Marriage

hmomoy (CC)

hmomoy (CC)

hmomoy (CC)

Since the Supreme Court is hearing the cases on gay marriage, of course there are piles of blogs, columns, and media commentaries about the oral arguments that were made in Court. In all honesty, I had no intentions of weighing in on this issue – at all – until a short exchange on Twitter with Charles (@repub9989) and the social media person over at The American Spectator (@AmSpec.) The whole conversation started because I had re-tweeted a link to Quin Hillyer’s piece on the matter – The Insufficiency of the “Procreation” Argument Against Homosexual “Marriage”. It’s a long title for a short piece of work that Hillyer freely admits really does need a much longer treatment. And he does point readers to James Taranto’s long-winded opinion on the matter. Of course that would have been much more useful if it had been a bit more simplistic.

Kudos to Taranto for engaging in an admirable performance of legal and linguistic acrobatics, however Justice Elena Kagan’s “trick” question had an answer that should have literally leaped into the mind of anyone that currently has, or previously had widow or widower over the age of 55 in the family (or even a really close friend.) Anyone currently receiving or about to become eligible to receive Social Security benefits knows this little gem. If a beneficiary is receiving payments due to a deceased spouse, those benefits are forfeit in the case of re-marriage. So, while procreation may be a logical reason to defend heterosexual marriage (and deny same-sex marriage) among younger citizens, Kagan’s argument about older citizens marrying is relatively rare anyway. Widows don’t tend to want to give up the benefits they receive even for the sake of love, so the new trend among seniors is co-habitation. If nothing else, it would have been priceless to see the looks on the faces of the Justices if Charles Cooper had replied with something akin to, “well, with all due respect, because individuals of that age could stand to lose governmental benefits if they chose marriage, they tend to choose to ‘live in sin’ instead – there aren’t very many people in that age group that actually want marriage licenses in the first place.”

It would have been amusing, even a bit refreshing, to see the honest truth displayed in the highest court, but it still would not have resolved the issue at hand. Is there a real reason outside of religious philosophy that can defend traditional marriage? Is there something that is not attached to ideology or religious belief systems to counter the secular left’s desire to render all gender neutral, at least as far as marriage is concerned? It is tempting to suggest that the left has become so steeped in science fiction that they are envisioning a country with the same sort of gender neutrality the writers and creators of Star Trek tried to create. Of course the real results that they are achieving are far from that world, and include militant feminists that refuse to accept that there are biological and psychological differences between the sexes. It also includes faithful atheists that believe they follow a religion, albeit the anti-Judeo-Christian sort that apparently reduces its “followers” to the point where they can be compared with Hollywood-style vampires that are terrified of any religious article. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad – watching them fight against symbols of deities that they supposedly do not believe exist in the first place.

As an atheist, I find it particularly disturbing that I seem to regularly end up either defending deists, or the respective religions they follow. This situation is no different. As for defending the concept of traditional marriage from being sullied by permitting gay couples to legally marry, I have nothing. That is a religious affair, beyond my reach – and for that matter, it should also be beyond the reach of the Federal Government. As far as government in general is concerned, marriage is not sacred. It is already nothing more than a personal contract, and means for the government to keep tabs on taxpayers. Many years ago, I sat in a high school economics class where the teacher pointed out the entire problem with marriage. His contention was that it was far too easy to get married, and far too difficult to get a divorce. In the case of non-religious couples, at the very least there should be mandatory prenuptial agreements that must be completed before a marriage license could be acquired. I know this sounds suspiciously like increasing the work of government, but in reality, it would eventually reduce it. Imagine removing the necessity of having bureaucrats around to settle financial and custody matters for couples getting a divorce, because those matters were settled before they even got married. Yes, there would still be a need for them in extenuating circumstances, particularly in abusive relationships that fall apart. However, perhaps the process of completing the paperwork would in itself prevent at least a few of those doomed relationships from getting started in the first place. Individuals that choose to have their unions solemnized in a church would have to complete whatever their respective faiths required, and acquire a statement of permission from a priest or minister. That would be in addition to the required prenuptial agreement, since that would be the means for the state to guarantee an easy divorce. It was an interesting concept to say the least, but one that if it was in effect now, would arguably have settled this particular issue. While it wouldn’t have removed the state from the marriage business as many Libertarians are suggesting now, it would have placed a great deal of control over the process in the hands of the churches.

As Matt Lewis recently pointed out, conservatives have lost (are losing?) the culture war. Liberals are very big on pleasure and their right to do whatever they choose, as long as it feels good. Conservatives are focused more on the responsibilities that people must remember are inextricably linked to all rights. Instead of worrying about procreation, or even the concept of government protecting marriage from being destroyed by gays, conservatives should have shifted this argument to the realm of actions and consequences. The liberals do not play well in this arena, because they are so purely focused on self-gratification that they cannot shift gears easily to address the real consequences of their actions. Conservatives have been waging this battle for years over abortion. This argument really shouldn’t be about who may or may not get married legally, but about truly protecting the institution of marriage from the state. That old economics teacher had it right, because he recognized what religious leaders are oddly quiet about now. Instead of just saying allowing gays to marry is “wrong”, why aren’t they saying what has desperately needed to be said for years now? Why aren’t those leaders leaving the blame for the high divorce rate, and high numbers of single-parent families where it belongs? Yes, they often say it is the fault of liberal policies in government, but that idea should have been hammered home on the issue of same-sex marriage until even conservatives were complaining about the repetition. The bottom line remains that the true root cause of the erosion of the sanctity of marriage is a societal failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions. It is too easy for everyone to enter into marital relationships.

It’s unlikely that anyone would ever seriously suggest what I’ve outlined here as a solution to the problem, regardless of whether or not it actually would resolve the issue. I know social conservatives would never suggest it, at least not as I’ve stated it here, because it does not forbid same sex unions, per se. Admittedly, I intentionally avoided saying anything about that. The government has no place refusing such unions, because the state’s part in the process is purely the legalities – that is the case now, and should remain that way. Churches would be free to forbid those unions at will, and that would be protecting the sanctity of marriage – the state should not be able to dictate the actions of churches when it comes to the recognition of same sex marriage. Religion and politics do not mix well. This nation was founded because of that fact, but too many of us tend to forget that, or twist it to our own purposes. Too many people forget that the “separation of church and state” was meant to be a two-way street. It is meant to not only protect churches from interference by government, but also protect government from the same by churches. It was a good theory over 200 years ago, and it still is now.

Originally posted at PolitiChicks.tv.

The Swindlers: How Four Vain Philosophies Threaten American Liberty.

Jack-ass polices are getting tiresome

“The ‘Art of War’ is painted with a Philosophers   pen.”-Unknown

This is a brief study of the religious, and philosophical weapons that Post-modern Democrats, are using against the chief cornerstone of liberty—the Christian worldview. Their goal is simple—marginalize Christianity, and thus liberty, and replace our great heritage with a forgery—Secular Humanism. My purpose is to point out the philosophical  weapons that Progressive/Post-modern-Democrats are using in our culture, and encourage conservatives to engage our fellow Americans with a reasoned argument.

Please note: the terms Progressive, Post-modern, and Humanism are used somewhat interchangeably. Although there are differences in their meaning, their arguments against conservatives are similar. My goal is also to reach out to both Independents, and Democrats to disengage from the Democrat party rhetoric—which is nothing more then a swindler’s list of false slogans. I know this to be true because I use to be one of them. I have since become an Independent and staunch Christian conservative.

I want to make a brief distinction between the traditional Blue-dog Democrats, and the Progressives/Post-moderns. Blue-dog Democrats believed in the same values as our Founders did—that our liberties come from God, and not too much government intervention. This is not what the Progressive/Post-modern-Democrat believes today—they are hostile to this concept. I point this out because  both my Father and Grandfather were hard working Blue-dogs. Our enemy here is not the people—it’s their vain ideologies.

Sadly, many of the traditional working-class Blue-dogs, still to this day, are not aware of the skullduggery committed in the hijacking of their party. Therefore, because of their innocent oblivion   it concerns me that president Barack Obama may be re-elected. If the Democrat party wins back the House—the Founding Fathers doomsday prophecy of America falling under a tyrannical government could well be fulfilled. Remember, half the battle in any fight is knowing your opponent, the other half is knowing their strategy.  Our opponents are the Progressive Democrats, the enemy is their ideas–So lets get busy.

 

The four weapons of the Post-modern-Progressive Democrat–a brief history.

It was Alexis de Tocqueville who said, “The Americans who combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” Sadly this statement by the French philosopher is no longer true. The religion he was referring to was Christianity.

50 years ago in 1962-(63), Christianity—the chief cornerstone of American Exceptionalism, and vanguard of liberty was removed from public education. It’s replacement was a deceptive religion, a philosophy of supposed moral neutrality called Secular Humanism. Born from the words of the Dragon of Eden, and proffered during the Enlightenment period, this was the religion of man as the center of all things—a breeding ground for government largess—and that was the plan. This would be the primary weapon for Progressive Democrats in which all vanity would build upon.

To further popularize Humanism—the new vanguard of our republic, three vain philosophies: Naturalism, Moral Relativism, and Religious Pluralism would form a rather unholy, but complementary alliance with Secularism in the pilfering of American values. This would not only challenge the Biblical worldview, but Natural law, and The Correspondence theory of truth, and indeed it was successful. In spite of all the circular reasoning, and contradictions these vain ideologies brought forth—America seemed bewitched by these charming tales.

Traditionally it was always understood that true propositions corresponded to reality—to which the Biblical worldview exclusively fit. The Post-modern rejection of Natural law, and Aristotelian logic sent a shock-wave through the fabric of our culture; setting us back academically, and socially from prior years with some ugly metrics such as: lower SAT scores, an increase in crime, personal debt, teen-pregnancies, divorce, and a host of other moral calamities. Here are some disturbing graphs.

Not dissuaded by the moral and academic decline, the Progressive-Democrat swindle continued. The strategy was simple: marginalize the Biblical worldview in all facets of American culture, so that in time our nation would cycle through a new generation of like-minded professional Progressive-Humanists. Influential positions such as: teachers, professors, media moguls, judges, even theologians, and of course politicians, would capitulate to this atheistic way of thinking. Big government would be the “God” of their lives.

This cultural confusion that we are currently witnessing is somewhat reminiscent of the Marxist-Leninist Communist takeover in Russian 1917. Aside from whipping up the working class, and union infiltration, another similarity was being played out at our universities since the early 20th century,  the theory of Naturalism.  The belief that man came from natural organic evolution, as opposed to super-natural means. This would be the second weapon in the Progressive-Democrat playbook, borrowing from the Humanist playbook.

The intellectual offspring of Naturalism was Evolution. The theory goes as follows; that life evolved from the simple to the complex via Natural Selection, Mutation, and Genetic-Drift. Personally, I think Darwin should take a back seat in the classroom. Achieving life from non-life has never been witnessed. The theory seems contradictory on it’s face— something from nothing—simple to complex…considering a greater agency would be needed, and where are the fossils of these transitional forms ?

Weapon number three is a simple deduction–if man was not created, then definitions of right and wrong are not absolute. In fact they were relative to the person, or culture. This is called Moral Relativism: a belief that universal truth, in a absolute objective way does not exist. Think about that for a moment…if truth is just a preference, like ice-cream flavors, then for certain, Moral Relativists would find the Christian witness of Jesus only, an a aggressive and false belief. Moral Relativism in summation, is self-refuting.

However, considering America has become a great melting pot of varied worldviews and religions, thanks to the graciousness of our Christian heritage, Secular Humanist’s could not afford to simply force people to drop their worldviews. They did something much more ingenious. The fourth weapon deployed would be philosophy of Religious Pluralism.

This charming sophistry would create the false impression that all religions are equally valid, hence true in the classic meaning,  irrespective of their contradictory truth claims. This is also a classic Post-modern-Democrat slogan as well. An easy example to understand this if I may. Imagine you are trying to find the capital of our nation, Washington, D.C., and you ask for directions, and you hear the following… “it doesn’t matter what highway you take, they are all equally valid!” Folks it doesn’t get much sillier then this.

Finally, these four philosophical weapons have effectively obfuscated our cultural values of thrift, hard work, and the belief in universal truth;  and more then anything—hope. Perhaps a word of wisdom from Aristotle would be apropos. In book 12 of Meta-Physics he says, “ That there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all the wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world, and we are able to discover a good deal about this being.”  For a man who lived a few centuries before Christ, he was able to see the footprint of God through creation and logic.

Folks our worldviews matter. Our moral positions either add to civility or subtract from it. Some worldviews do not make sense in the world we live in. Think it through and vote sensibly.

A special thanks and credits to the folks at Stand to Reason and Answers in Genesis of which I have learned a great deal. I encourage any person that is truly interested in engaging our confused culture with a rational and winning argument to review their web-sites.

 

Imagine. No Religion, too.

There’s a woman who lives near me with a personalized license plate that proclaims she’s a WICCAN. If her idea of theology is a penetrating discussion with a pecan tree and she wants to proclaim her lasting commitment to cellulose; that’s her right. Even though the sentiment appears on a plate issued by the Commonwealth.
She’s joined by motorists displaying plates with DRUID, PAGAN and even VEGAN.
Although the thought processes behind the adoption of these belief systems are opaque to me — much like the decision to go out and get a tattoo — knowing religion–oriented plates are out there is not disturbing.
However, one can’t say that for atheists who are very easily disturbed. Evidently their dedication to their lack of faith is so fragile that exposure to slightest whiff of Christianity has the potential to propel them backwards into darkness and superstition. The next thing you know they’re eating Wednesday night dinner in a Baptist Fellowship Hall and wondering why there are never any salt shakers on the table.
Atheists and the separation–of–church–and–state crowd are busy banning Bibles in schools, crosses from Utah roadsides and the phrase “God bless you” from funerals in a Houston VA cemetery. Consequently, they aren’t focused on license plates, but I have a feeling it’s on a To–Do list.
Readers who rely on the news media for their Constitution instruction may not know this, but the document is not actively anti–religion. The founders were believers and the thought of banning government from even the most glancing connection with God would have seemed absurd to them.
The Constitution only prohibits the establishment of a state religion, for example: Emperor worship during the Roman Empire or the Anglican Church in England under Henry VIII.
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. This atheist catchphrase originated in a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson and has no more force of law than this column.
And Jefferson, bless his heart, had his idiosyncrasies. Acting as the Gutenberg of the scissors and a paste–pot set, Jefferson produced his own Bible by literally cutting out the parts he didn’t like and keeping what he did.
This may make him the first Unitarian Universalist and would probably qualify Jefferson to be ordained as an Episcopal bishop, but it does not make him a reliable source on the religious views of the founders.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the religion scrubbers are correct and the Constitution justifies purging all trace of worship from the public square. The question is what type of government do they think will result?
A cool, clean empire of intellect ruled by Mr. Spock? Maybe, but China is more likely.
This would make many progressives very happy, including those in the White House. China is a communist government run by experts. (A two–fer in progressive circles.) These experts don’t get bogged down in partisan gridlock caused by annoying Republicans who smoke. Decisions are made based on science, not politics. Plus, the experts are Asian and everyone knows how smart they are.
China is also rich. And it has bullet trains that fly between major cities. State–sponsored abortion is legal. (You could almost call it human sacrifice, but that sounds too much like religion.) And since there is only one party, there are no messy political campaigns and tacky commercials.
China is everything a secular humanist could wish for, until a toddler gets hit by a truck.
Then you learn the price for removing religion from the public square. 18 different people in Guangzhou watched as a two–year–old girl, who wandered into traffic, was smashed by delivery van. They left her lying bloody in the street until she was run over by a truck. Finally, after seven long minutes, an elderly scrap peddler, who may not have had anything to lose, dragged her out of the street.
People don’t help injured two–year–olds in China because helping others is not state–approved behavior. In 2007 a young man was sued after he helped an elderly woman with a broken leg to the hospital. The Wall Street Journal reports the court ordered the rescuer to pay 40 percent of the woman’s medical bills because “according to common sense” he would not have helped her if he had not been in some way responsible for her fall.
This is social Darwinism as a governing philosophy. Altruism only creates suspicion in a government where religion is banned.
This is why over time the religion haters won’t like the government that results from their efforts. Because when you jettison God you also jettison the Good Samaritan.

AMERICA: AT A MORAL CROSSROADS

We have a major moral issue brewing in America today. The issue is thatthe vast majority of people considered ‘leaders’ (i.e. political, social,educational and even religious leaders) in America have strayed a longway from the moral teachings of the One true God of the Bible and havereplaced the wisdom of God with the foolishness of man’s wisdom. TheFounding Fathers who established this amazing country did not relysolely on their wisdom to establish America’s rules and laws. They wereon their knees daily seeking the very face of God as they sought His wisdom as they triedto establish this country.

Now this once great country has never been perfect. The people who worked night and dayfor years to establish this country’s rules and guidelines were imperfect sinners. However,these people did not establish this country without biblically based moral convictions.I am not going to list the hundreds of moral quotes and biblical convictions that thesepeople had. However, I will list a few in order to help the ignorant. (I know a lot of yougovernment educated people were deceived by anti-God, anti-American teachers whonever taught you the truth about the biblical founding of this country.) I would encourageany of the rest of you anti-God, anti-American liberals who have more brains than aFrench fry to do a little research and see that our Founding Fathers clearly saw the absolutenecessity of running their newly established government on biblical principles.

John Adams 2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history ofAmerica. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generationsas the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Dayof Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to besolemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells,bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from thistime forward forever.”

–Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

The brilliant men who founded this nation clearly saw that if this Christian nation (i.e. her people) strayed from the absolute moral truths of the Bible (has it has today) and instead tries to establish its own unbiblical ‘do whatever feels good or whatever the people want’morals, it would not be long before the entire American governmental system would fail!

1st U.S. President George Washington

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers,we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To thedistinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the moredistinguished character of Christian.”

–The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

America is at a moral crossroads. Even though there is a group of genuinely political patriots trying to resolve this nation’s economic problems it will not last without also re-establishing America’s moral compass. The leaders in this nation must once again publically put the Divine One (who initially helped establish this country) back on His throne in America.

Without the Lord being the Head of this nation we will never beable to re-establish this once great country’s place of political and social superiority. Simply trying to re-establish economic morals in this country will not accomplish that! Abalanced and fiscally responsible budget is great, but it will never succeed if we do not also re-establish this nation’s social and spiritual heritage.

As a nation, we must stoplistening to the promiscuous cries of a sinful people (who desire nothing more than to livein their wanton pleasures) when we try to establish biblically moral laws and rules in thisnation. If this nation is going to survive, American loving patriots needs to publicly rebuke the historically ignorant idiots who cry out, “Separation of church and state” everytime moral people try to establish moral accountability in our government. (P.S. There isnothing in our constitution which demands that our government keep religion out of itseveryday practices.

From day one our country’s governmental buildings were adornedwith Bible verses and moral quotes. The political leaders of this land constantly quoted the Bible as they talked to their people. It is only in recent times thathuman secularists (people who deem themselves smarter and wiser than our FoundingFathers) have tried to push God out of our government. It is only in recent times that anti-God atheists have tried to mislead people into believing that the Lord of the Bible does notbelong in any aspects of our government. I would love to run these secular miscreants outof the country. I would love to silence their arrogant, deceiving mouths. Unfortunately I cannot.

This is the problem: If these miscreants are American citizens they have to right tolive here; they have the right to freedom of speech; have the right to their own opinions;they even have the right to thrust their views on others. And as a result when we allowamoral, immoral and unprincipled people to live and rule in a country (that is supposed tobe running on God’s moral absolutes) they will always end up doing what is right (i.e. self-
pleasing and self-satisfying) in their own eyes. The God of the Bible does not play a partin the decision making process for amoral or immoral secularists. If a majority of them want to kill a baby in a mother’s womb they will push for legalization of it. If a majority ofthese types of people want to legalize drugs, homosexuality, gay marriage, underage sex,polygamy, etc. etc. it will only be a matter of time before it happens. After all, if God’sWord is not going to be used as the litmus test for what is moral what will be used? There is nothing else to use but the feelings and opinions of a sinful people. And if we human sare left to decide what feels right or wrong we will never have moral absolutes. (P.S. Jesus said that people (left to themselves) like the darkness rather than the Light.) As the peoplein a nation become more and more immoral, it will not be long before that country’s lawsbecome more and more immoral. If we are not going to use the absolute moral truths ofGod’s Word as our gauge, then it will be soon be anything goes because who are wehumans to judge the morals of another? If we as a nation are not going to use perfectly thedesigned and authored Word of God to determine right from wrong then who or what willdecide what is right from wrong? Again, without the hindsight and knowledge of God’sWord there is nothing to stop amoral and immoral people from passing laws which makethe most wicked and vile things imaginable ‘legal.’

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymenstating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending withhuman passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was madeonly for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government ofany other.”

Those of us who are truly concerned about this nation must see and agree to repair notonly America’s economic issues but also her moral issues. America the nation needsto repent of her tolerance of sin. The God of the Bible tells us that not only are thingslike: lying, cheating, stealing and greed wrong, but so are socially acceptable things like:adultery, casual and flippant divorces, fornication, witchcraft, mind altering drug abuseand drunkenness, etc. If those who are trying to re-establish this nation politically are notwilling to publically and privately re-establish this nation biblically, they will fail—nomatter how good or sincere their intentions.

“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

As I said before, this nation was not established out of a vacuum. This nation did nothappen by accident. All true fundamental Christians believe the hand of God playedan incredible part in establishing America the Nation. And what was the reason God supernaturally intervened? The people trying to establish America were continuallygoing to God in prayer as they sought His wisdom in establishing America’s rules and
regulations. (Again, I am not going to debate the idea of how biblical and God-searching America’s Founding Fathers were. It is a no-brainer historical fact. Research it yourself or keep your mouth shut!)

Patrick Henry Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation wasfounded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospelof Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been affordedasylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
“The Bible … is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.”
–The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.
–Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402.

A Bible based godly peer pressure needs to be re-established once again in America.People need to understand the freedom and liberty without biblical morality leadshedonism! If sinful people are given absolute freedom and liberty without moral absolutesanarchy and moral depravity will eventually lead to not only the individual destruction ofpeople but also to national destruction of that country. We once again need to have peoplein America see that acts like adultery, fornicators, casual divorce and unwed pregnanciesare shameful things. I am afraid that a large percentage of conservative, God-fearingAmericans really do not want to go back to using the Bible as America’s moral compass.(I hope I am wrong!) I know conservative patriotic people and politicians who wantto ‘right the economic ship’ in America. My concern (as a constitutional Christian), is dothese same people also want to ‘right’ America’s moral ship using the absolute morals ofGod’s Word or are they going to continue to tolerate the foolish psycho-babble doctrinesand philosophies of sinful humanists?

This country needs to stop ‘encouraging’ and/or promoting pornography as a freedomof speech. It is destroying the moral fiber of our children! How stupid have a peoplebecome when they ‘see’ pornography as an American freedom or right to free speech?True patriotic Americans needs to shout from the streets that liberty and freedom aredemoralizing and destructive in a society where the moral absolutes of God’s Word arenot only ignored but ‘legally’ stifled! Patriotic Americans need to re-establish the idea thatit is no longer going to be socially acceptable to use illegal or mind-altering drugs (whichwould include casually using illegal drugs for ‘medical’ reasons) and prescription drugs astools of pleasure. In the Bible the Lord uses words like witchcraft, sorcery and drug usagesynonymously. America has become a society of dope-heads. There are very few familiesin America these days that have not seen the devastating effects of mind altering illegal orlegal drugs.

More Americans need to understand the absolute absurdity in pushing God out of ourcountry. Who would have ever thought that there would be a day in America when Godwould be pushed out of our country’s government arena? Do these anti-religious idiotsreally comprehend how stupid they look in the eyes of God? These anti-Bible Americansthink that things like the Bible and God are a joke or fairy-tale. These secular foolsactually believe they are smarter than the One who created them!

Why do you call Me Lord and not do as I say?
American loving citizens need to see that America is in a fight for her very survival!This once God-loving, Bible-preaching country is going the way of other once greatChristian nations which went secular—into moral and economic decay! The Bible saysthat the nation which fears God will prosper in all that it does. God promises to honorthose societies or nations that honor His moral code. On the other hand, the same Biblesays that the Lord laughs at those societies and/or nations which fall to ruin because theydevised ways that were not God’s ways. The Bible says that God is not mocked. Whatevera person/society/nation sows it what it will reap. Well look at the moral mess we havein America today! The sacred God-given sacrament of marriage is no longer consideredsacred but an option. We have over fifty types of sexually transmitted diseases beingpassed around these days. These are a result of immoral freedoms and liberties! Americahas become a society where a large percentage of Americans see nothing wrong withripping a living baby out of its mother’s womb and throwing it in the garbage like a pieceof rotten meat. This one, vile, disgusting legalized baby killing practice gives God enoughreason to wipe America off the map!

The bottom line is that if America the Nation continues to push the One true God ofthe Bible out of its everyday governmental practices God will leave us to our owndemise. And it will not be long before this country becomes as decadent as Sodom andGomorrah—just as Jesus said.

Thomas Jefferson

“The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion.”

As President, Thomas Jefferson not only signed bills which appropriated financial support forchaplains in Congress and in the armed services, but he also signed the Articles of War, April10, 1806, in which he:
“Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divineservices.”

Our American constitution and our Bill of Rights are amazing documents. However,they do not even come close to the incredibly perfect Word of God! A lot of very wiseand intelligent human beings worked night and day for years to establish these amazingdocuments. However, these wonderfully crafted humanistic documents do not come closeto the unfathomable depth of the writings of the Bible. Man, even at the highest secularlevels of intelligence do not come close to the wisdom of God.

John Adams2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their onlylaw Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts thereexhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality,and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety,love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Utopia, what a Paradisewould this region be.”
–Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

So again, freedom and liberty are wonderful gifts from God—when we are not using thosefreedoms and liberties to do whatever we like instead of what God wants.