Church in the U.S. Capitol
David Barton – Originally published 11/10/2005
Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol’s use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.
The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building. 1
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:
City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph. 2
The reason for the original use of the Capitol as a church might initially be explained by the fact that there were no churches in the city at that time. Even a decade later in 1803, U. S. Senator John Quincy Adams confirmed: “There is no church of any denomination in this city.” 3 The absence of churches in Washington eventually changed, however. As one Washington citizen reported: “For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small [wooden] churches. . . . Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone.” 4 Yet, even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” 7 Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” 8 She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” 9 Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. 11
In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services “” including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.)
Typical of Adams’ diary entries while a U.S. Senator under President Jefferson were these:
Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13
Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: “Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present.” 16 The church was often full “so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since “the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker’s chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in” was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the “House was full, but not crowded” 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: “I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats.” 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.” 20
Interestingly, the Marine Band participated in the early Capitol church services. According to Margaret Bayard Smith, who regularly attended services at the Capitol, the band, clad in their scarlet uniforms, made a “dazzling appearance” as they played from the gallery, providing instrumental accompaniment for the singing. 21 The band, however, seemed too ostentatious for the services and “the attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued.” 22
From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the “oven” in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when “on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857.” 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher’s pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.
The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: “Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol” 25 and “clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach.” 26
In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.
IN 1867, OVER 2,000 PER WEEK ATTENDED CHURCH SERVICES AT THE CAPITOL
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: “Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives’ where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath’ for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.’ The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.” 27
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.
Church In The Capitol Milestones
* 1806. On January 12, 1806, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832) became the first woman to preach before the House. One female attendee had noted: “Preachers of every sect and denomination of Christians were there admitted- Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers, with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence in this national Hall.” 30 In attendance at that service were President Thomas Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr. Ripley conducted the lengthy service in a fervent, evangelical, camp-meeting style.
* 1826. On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina (Bishop over North and South Carolina and Georgia) became the first Catholic to preach in the House of Representatives. Of that service, President John Quincy Adams (a regular attendee of church services in the Capitol) noted: Walked to the Capitol and heard the Bishop of Charleston, [John] England -” an Irishman. He read a few prayers and then delivered an extemporaneous discourse of nearly two hours’ duration. . . . He closed by reading an admirable prayer. He came and spoke to me after the service and said he would call and take leave of me tomorrow. The house was overflowing, and it was with great difficulty that I obtained a seat. 31
* 1827. In January 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868) became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. (Three of her immediate family members: ” her father, grandfather, and uncle” had been Members of Congress. Her grandfather, Samuel Livermore, was a Member of the first federal Congress and a framer of the Bill of Rights; her uncle was a Member under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; her father was a Member under President James Monroe.) The service in which she preached was not only attended by President John Quincy Adams but was also filled with Members of Congress as well as the inquisitive from the city. As Margaret Bayard Smith noted, “curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions.” 32 Livermore spoke for an hour and a half, resulting in mixed reactions; some praised her and were even moved to tears by her preaching, some dismissed her. Harriet Livermore preached in the Capitol on four different occasions, each attended by a different President.
* 1865. On February 12, 1865, Henry Highland Garnet (1815- 1882) became the first African American to speak in Congress. Two weeks earlier, on January 31, 1865, Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, and Garnet was invited to preach a sermon in Congress to commemorate that event. In his sermon, Garnet described his beginnings: ‘I was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. My earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. The first sight that met my eyes was my Christian mother enslaved.” 33 His family escaped to the North; he became a minister, abolitionist, temperance leader, and political activist. He recruited black regiments during the Civil War and served as chaplain to the black troops of New York. In 1864, he became the pastor of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. (where he served at the time of this sermon). He later became president of Avery College and was made Minister to Liberia by President Ulysses S. Grant.
(For more information on this topic please see “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government (Part 2)” on the Library of Congress website)
NOTES
[1] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.
[2] Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, p. 2.
[3] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[4] Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), p. 16.
[5] Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.
[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.
[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).
[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.
[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).
[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.
[12] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.
[13] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 265, October 23, 1803.
[14] Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. “Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife,” Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), p. 168.
[15] See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.
[16] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 116, January 9, 1803.
[17] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[18] See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.
[19] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. X, p. 434, February 28, 1841.
[20] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.
[21] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[22] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 16.
[23] James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91.
[24] William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.
[25] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.
[26] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[27] Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[28] Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.
[29] From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
[30] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[31] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, p. 102, January 8, 1826.
[32] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.
[33] Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73.
(Reprinted with permission from Wallbuilders.com)
- The Righter Report
A Gift for Daddy – A Christmas Story
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a man disciplined his five-year-old daughter for using up the family’s only roll of expensive gold wrapping paper before Christmas.
Money was tight, so he became even more upset when, on Christmas Eve, he saw that the child had used the expensive gold paper to decorate a large shoebox she had placed under the Christmas tree.
Nevertheless, the next morning the little girl, filled with excitement, brought the gift box to her father and said, “This is for you, Daddy! Merry Christmas!”
As he opened the box, the father was embarrassed by his earlier overreaction, now regretting how he had punished her.
But when he opened the shoebox, he found it was empty and again his anger flared. “Don’t you know, young lady,” he said harshly, “that when you give someone a present there’s supposed to be something inside the package?”
The little girl looked up at him with sad tears rolling from her eyes and whispered: “Daddy, it’s not empty. I blew kisses into it until it was all full.”
The father was crushed. He fell on his knees and put his arms around his precious little girl. He begged her to forgive him for his unnecessary anger.
An accident took the life of the child only a short time later. It is told that the father kept this little gold box by his bed for all the years of his life. Whenever he was discouraged or faced difficult problems, he would open the box, take out an imaginary kiss, and remember the love of this beautiful child who had put it there.
In a very real sense, each of us have been given an invisible golden box filled with unconditional love and kisses from our children, family, friends and from God.
There is no more precious possession anyone could hold.
May God bless you and your family this Christmas Season.
Other Christmas Stories:
- The Righter Report
Our Battle for the Soul of America
Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com.
People of faith look around our country at forms of behavior now accepted and wonder how is it possible that during their own lifetime things have so dramatically deteriorated. I refer not simply to the decadent sexual realities that have become so de rigueur but to the political positions and mouthings spewing from politicians who appear to care more about our enemies than the plight of our soldiers, and profess a worldview more internationalist than American.
The elitists in media, academia, Hollywood, government – especially the Courts – have united to reconstitute the Founding Fathers’ vision of a nation conceived in G-d We Trust, One Nation Under G-d, into a secular, hedonistic version of France and Sweden. They seem to be succeeding. Why?
It is because people of faith, along with patriotic Americans, have responded tepidly and not mightily, as is required in such a battle. Many remain silent and complacent because our goodwill and naiveté have stood in the way of our apprehending how those forces have had as their mission – for decades – the erasing of Judeo-Christian influence in American civic life and the diminution of real patriotism that is its twin.
What motivates these elitists is anti-Christianism and anti-historic Americanism. But to destroy America one must first destroy serious Protestantism, for the Judeo-Christian ethic is America’s founding rock. And to destroy America’s unique brand of Christianity, one must first destroy the specific American ethos that spawned it. Secularists have been successful for, apparently, they are more zealous in their crusade than we have been in our beliefs. Their religion is left/liberalism, fanatic liberalism: today’s neo-paganism. Animated by the fervor of paganism, they have managed, through intimidation, to disparage and squelch true public religiosity while spreading – missionary-like – their creed of secularism, hedonism.
Simply answering with love is no match for those using the stick of intimidation, weapons of mass cultural destruction (WMCDs). We, believing and patriotic Americans, were caught off guard since we assumed that the face arrayed against Christianity and love of country would be an ugly face. But that is not so, for throughout history pagans have most often been charming neighbors. No doubt those false prophets who followed the wicked King Ahab and Jezebel dined in ancient Judea’s finest restaurants, attended the theater, dressed well, were fashionable, and comported themselves with ingratiating, amiable manners. Look at the French!
Were not the ancient pagans who extolled beauty and grace charming? The elites of their day? The face of paganism in ancient high society as well as today’s is often a pleasant one and, therefore, dangerously disarming. Rarely is it the face of Genghis Kahn. Pagan secularists did not want to kill their neighbors, rather invite them into their multi-cultural, pantheistic circles. Retain your God, they proclaimed, so long as your God assumes his pitiful position among the many gods and cultures. Continue your Americanism and Christianity here in America, the multiculturalists assert, so long as it is not dominant, simply a limp ingredient in the overriding multi-cultural edifice.
It would be silly in a modern society to frame an argument in language speaking of multi-gods, pantheism. The appeal is made, therefore, in terms of multiculturalism, a code-phrase, an undertaking for diminishing the Old-Line Protestant Christianity that produced America’s historic culture. Diversity in different segments of society is enriching. The intent, however, of professional multiculturalists is to weaken America’s civic culture by relegating its fount, Old Testament Christianity, to a low rung; by ordering Christians of Faith to the back of the bus.
As in any culture war, it is won by those who define and, therefore, command, the moral language. American liberals did this by employing terminology they knew good-willed people – us – would readily accept: compassion, sensitivity, inclusion, tolerance. Especially tolerance, for who wishes to be called intolerant, the deadliest of the neo-pagan seven sins. Limitless tolerance – a fanatic tolerance – is the very essence of paganism. It accepts everything, including decadence. Out of a desire for appearing good – and we have allowed liberals to decide who in this society is considered “good” — we’ve been intimidated into accepting that which our forbearers, even non-religious, would never have accepted.
Every person needs a doctrine or set of guiding principles from which to order his life. Historically, ours derived from the Old and New Testament. Rejecting the constraints demanded by the Bible, liberals created their own deities, mirroring, almost to a tee, the virtues assigned to respective pagan gods. They worship these deities with an absolutism surpassing, often, our own to our G-d. While we’ve allowed ourselves to be intimidated or embarrassed into silence, fanatic liberals have never flinched from relentless public chanting of their deities: “separation of church and state,” “racism,” “non-judgmentalism” – except when judging Christians of Faith. Sin and virtue in our society have been re-categorized to reflect a hierarchy of liberal values instead of the ones enunciated in the Bible and displayed by America’s past everyday citizens.
Liberals have instituted a new type of Replacement Theology, even corrupting mainline Protestant and Catholic denominations. What one hears from the pulpits today in many Jewish temples is akin to what was heard at the Temple of Zeus. It is delivered by clergymen who are modern-day versions of the ancient False Prophets. America’s liberals have co-opted the moral language. We are to tolerate all lifestyles, except that of the traditional family. Tolerate every “religion,” except Evangelical Christianity. Tolerate every culture, except that of the unique American civilization. We are to have compassion for America’s enemies but be “ho-hum” about our soldiers and those beheaded by our enemies. We must show compassion to criminals while caring not how victims and society live in fear. We must be sensitive to the needs of those following Haitian witchcraft, Ramadan and Kwanzaa, but do our best to prohibit nativity scenes and crosses. Sensitivity to every group, not however to white, Christian evangelicals – and their wives. We must never be racist, but bigotry is welcome when denigrating Southerners.
Equality should mean no double standards, yet certain segments of society are exused for behavior that are not tolerated when done by the mainstream. In the name of anti-racism, we are asked to accept reverse racism. For example, affirmative action is forced on a society that clearly wishes to reward merit and character rather than color of skin. We must be inclusive, except when it comes to excluding principled practicing Christians of Faith who go before the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominees for Federal judgeships. The A.C.L.U., the legal arm of pagan America, has convinced us all that George Washington fought at Valley Forge to found a nation predicated on “separation of church and state.” Unfortunately, they have succeeded.
The truth is the A.C.L.U. never believed in separation of church and state as much as using it as a hammer to dampen Christianity, its symbols, its values. The proof? In the last two years it has taken up the cause of defending Islamic “religious rights” – from wearing full-length burkas at community swimming pools to public school recitings from the Koran representing Islamic figures, to its silence on the issue of five-times-a-day-call- to-prayer loudspeaker announcements from mosques on public streets. The A.C.L.U. says, “those are cultural expressions, not religious.” Yet, Santa Claus, carols, nativity scenes, and crosses in military cemeteries…
The secular Left is purposely elevating Islam as a means to neutralize Christianity. It does so for it knows that the only way to destroy the American we’ve known is by destroying the Christianity, the Judeo-Christian ethic, which created it and made it great. It realizes that what stands in its way of molding America into a libertine European country, and a socialist “utopia” with them at the controlling helm, is Evangelical Christianity.
Liberals are today rewriting our religious heritage by now referring to “our” Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage, as if George Washington and John Adams spoke Arabic. When one observes the sheer absurdity of how these terms are today – through political correctness – employed and enforced, the phrase that comes to mind is absolutism, extremism. That liberals don’t question their reckless application of those terms is a sign of their blind faith. They are the religious Left.
When one beholds the mean-spiritedness behind each of these “virtues” created to exclude Christians and true-blue Americanism, the intent is obviously to destroy. What began as the goal of marginalizing Christianity has evolved into a desire to vanquish, from within, John Adams’s America. For the two are symbiotic. For the neo-Communists to control all power, they know they must first topple the twin pillars. The Jews and Christians of antiquity knew paganism for what it was and fought it. We, however, have been blindsided, and suckered.
We have compartmentalized our lives by retreating into the private all the while allowing the purveyors of secularism to reign over the public. We now find that the public domain controls our private realms. In the process, we have almost forfeited America, the America extant from the Pilgrims’ arrival until 1963. In our defense, we had assumed that paganism would attack the church frontally. It did not. Instead, it cleverly came through the door of government, courts, schools, our institutions. The media and press facilitated it, collaborated. We expected paganism to ride at us in blatant anti-religious garb. Instead, it arrived on a Trojan horse, a benighted political horse: liberalism.
We had thought that those living within the geographic boundaries called America were brothers, sometimes with slight differing views. We’ve learned, however, that country is more than geography but a set of core beliefs and values. Had what is being done to America today from those within its borders been enacted by people outside its shores, we would have recognized it as an invasion with intent to destroy our way of life, and liberties. We would have raised our swords. It is time we recognize that there are battalions living in America who, as if foreigners, share nothing of our American core beliefs and values. They are not brothers. To them, we are an enemy.
Even some who hail from American blue-blood families have tossed aside their heritage for internationalism, preferring to be citizens of the world. We’ve seen this phenomenon before. During ancient Israel’s Second Commonwealth, there arose (circa 185 B.C. – 10 B.C.) an elitist, pagan class called Hellenists. Though some were from Judea’s ancient families, they chose internationalism over the security and indigenous culture of their people, Israel. They abandoned the G-d of Israel for the culture and gods of the world. Internationalism has always been the enemy of David’s God.
No wonder a recent poll showed that Evangelicals are by far this nation’s most patriotic. The Hebrew term for paganism, idol worship, false gods, is avodah zarah. The ancients who engaged in avodah zarah, especially the Canaanites, never worshipped the objects per se but the ideal each object represented: excessive passion, self-indulgence, lust, nature, environment, gluttony, pantheism. These idols, especially in pre-Mosaic Canaan, represented the base in man, not the Divine. The pull and power of idol worship was enormous, as is neo-paganism today. One of the most popular and seductive gods was Baal, the Molech god. Molech, a fire god, demanded the sacrifice of a mother’s child. It was a fashion of the time, just as is today the sacrifice of one’s fetus to Mother feminism: abortion at any time, for any reason, even partial birth abortion. It is the sacrament. It has become the sophisticated mantra of our day that “a woman’s right to her own body” constitutes enlightenment.
Are we any less guilty of fashion-obsession than were the ancient fashion-conscious idol worshippers? How many in America are, like Elijah of old, willing to endure the out-casting “high society” confers on those standing up to today’s False Prophets of Liberalism? In Islamic society, “suicide bombing” is the sacrifice more and more mothers are proud to offer to the god Allah. Imams have elevated the purposeful death of a woman’s child for the sake of Allah as a surefire step to social standing and prominence. This, too, is Baal worship, paganism. (This itself affirms how all “holy books” are not equal, and that the true G-d we worship is defined not simply by being One but by His teachings. Their god is not our G-d.)
The fact that many on the Left, in Europe and America, have begun establishing “Endowment/Charity Funds to subsidize these “martyr” mothers is indicative of the symbiosis developing between the Left and Islam. You may ask, what unites these western sophisticates with Middle East barbarians? Anti-Christianity, anti-Americanism, paganism: the devotion to avodah zarah.
Unfortunately, we, too, have become seduced by a form of Molechism. It is the sacrifice of our children to an absurd, neo-morality. In the name of neo-morality we ask our soldiers not to fire until Islamic terrorists first fire on them. We ask our soldiers to go house-to-house in search of terrorists instead of bombing from above. The reason being: to “spare the innocents.” Look how Israel unnecessarily forfeited 23 soldiers in Jenin by sending them house-to-house in search of Arab terrorists so that “innocents” – who all wished them dead – could be spared from helicopter bombing from above. Many Leftist Israelis, as liberals here in America, felt a “spiritual” joy that their own were sacrificed in behalf of the new “higher” morality.
While historically the U.S. tried to protect non-combatants, when did it become the goal of war to let our own truly innocent die so as to spare the enemy’s “innocents?” The morality the Bible demands for war is quite simple and direct: Do not plunder, rape and ransack for the satisfaction of lust; rather, limit war’s purpose to the defense and security of country. Protecting one’s soldiers was considered paramount. Sacrificing them on the altar of “look how nice we are” was and is never Biblical, instead a form of self-worship. In fact, a secular newspaper editorialized how wonderful this neo-morality is for without it, the editor asks, “What gives meaning to us in this land?” Well, religious Christians and Jews already have meaning in their lives, thank you. Only a secularist is forced to fashion a neo-morality to supply personal meaning. Only someone who doesn’t believe in his own country’s way of life and ethos would require ersatz meanings to life.
Michael Lerner, one of this country’s most vocal and influential Leftists, Hillary Clinton’s former guru, announced that the United States must create a “Politics of Meaning.” I’m certain that Rev. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell and Brit Hume have no such need! The ubiquitous “compassion” phrase has been invoked in numerous editorials to justify the unnecessary deaths of our own military men and women so as to spare Moslem “innocents.” Only a twisted pagan view of what constitutes true compassion could make such an assertion. But even good men, religious men, have fallen sway to the new morality and definition of compassion being shoved down our throats.
The political correctness police have begun their indoctrination. It is hard to defy this brainwashing even while the heart murmurs “It is not so.” To me, none of this is genuine compassion, rather a disregard for the sanctity of our young soldiers’ lives. It places a higher value on others than our own. It is perverse internationalism, a disease infecting many in high places.
There is a 2,500-year-old Midrash (Jewish Bible commentary) that reflects on the civic nature of Biblical Sodom. It states: “In Sodom good was called bad; evil was labeled worthy. Cruelty was forced on those deserving compassion, while compassion was extended to the cruel. The pleas from victims of crime went unheeded because of the ‘rights’ granted perpetrators.” Sodom, as the Bible tells us, was a garden-like city and prosperous. Nonetheless, it was pagan. While paganism boasts of “loving life and all its pleasures,” at its heart it is suicidal, dark, full of self-hate and death-wish. It is cynical, bored. Psychologists might call this “compensation.”
Today’s extreme liberalism exhibits that nihilism, imbuing within its adherents a subconscious emotion longing for the death of its own American civilization. Rarely do societies have a chance to relive the actual Biblical experience. We do! In the form of extreme liberalism, high-society paganism in America and Europe is marching to conquer Biblical values.
If we wish to transmit to our children and grandchildren the religious heritage we cherish as well as the Americanism we inherited from our forefathers, we must fight now – in the public domain. We cannot afford to lose. We cannot turn the other check, for our Battle is for the Soul of America. As Elijah said: “Who is for G-d stand up: Come.” Now, before it is too late!
(Reprinted with permission from Rabbi Aryeh Spero)
- The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
This is the third in a series of articles on Obama vs. the Bible, demonstrating his preference for the tenets of political correctness and secular moral relativism over traditional Godly and Biblical values.
First up, a brief recap of Obama’s voting record on abortion.
Obama on Abortion: In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” (Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008)
When asked if he believed if life begins at conception, Obama replied:
“This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.” (Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008)
And in a classic display of Biblical ignorance, Obama said the following during an interview with Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California:
“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Have you never read Psalm 139:13 or Jeremiah 1:5, Mr. President?
It’s no secret that Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. “I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Notice that President Obama’s public service actions are based on his Christian beliefs. Or so he claims. The evidence, though, is to the contrary.
Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and for the last four decades, the lives of some 50 million unborn American citizens, teachers, scientists, health care professionals, and taxpayers – enough souls to actually fund, in full, the Pelosi, Reid, and Obama Health Care bill, have been snuffed out on the altar of personal convenience and political correctness. And while many Republicans and Independents have likewise abrogated their moral responsibilities to the unborn, their moral turpitude pales in comparison to the dedicated left wing pro-infanticide crowd, and Barack Obama in particular.
What does the Bible say about when life begins?
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)
Straight from the Jewish Torah, God immediately affirms the value of human life in a mother’s womb.
Next, a divinely appointed prophet from the womb:
Jeremiah 1:5 – ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Other prophets and Biblical personalities ordained from their mother’s wombs:
Samson: Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. “But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’” (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)
John the Baptist: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)
Jesus, the Son of God: Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” – Luke chapter 1
The Apostle Paul: “But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased…” (Galatians 1:15)
It is clear in scripture that in some way, God creates life in a mother’s womb.
Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’
Of course, the question for Barack and Michelle Obama and the pro-abortion crowd, is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating? Mr. President? Michelle Obama? Anyone?
Those were future prophets to the nations and the Savior of mankind in the womb. But the pro-abortion crowd wants to pretend that instead of babies with divine plans, they were nothing more than unviable tissue masses. Well, God is not fooled, and neither are those who read and respect God’s word.
Barack Obama says that abortion needs to be more rare. Which begs the question – if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then why does it need to be more rare? Mr. President? And if there is something wrong with the practice of abortion, then why isn’t Barack Obama pro-life? Can anyone answer that? Barack? Michelle Obama? Besides berating and apologizing for America, what did they teach in that church you attended for the last twenty years? Did they ever teach you what the Word of God says about how God creates life in a mother’s womb? Did you ever crack open your Bibles and read those passages with the same diligence and thoroughness as Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? And if you did read it, why haven’t you taken it to heart?
Some might ask, “But what if the cause of the pregnancy was from rape or incest?” Examiner.com notes,
“There are numerous responses that could be given to that question, but one thing that needs to be acknowledged is that rape and incest account for less than one percent of all reported abortions. Those that use that argument would like you to believe that it is the most common reason for a woman having an abortion. Actually, the most common reason given for having an abortion is because the child is “unwanted” or “inconvenient.” That reasoning accounts for ninety-three percent of all reported abortions. In other words, ninety-three percent of abortions stem from the rejection of personal responsibility.”
It is the avoidance of personal responsibility that is one of the chief hallmarks of liberalism.
Infanticide down through the Ages
When Moses the Lawgiver was conceived, they killed the babies (Exodus chapter 1). When Jesus was born, they killed the babies (Matthew chapter 2). And now that the Lord’s return is imminent, they’re killing the babies again, only this time by the tens of millions.
The fact is that God has a plan for everyone, no matter how insignificant they may appear to be. The Bible is full of personal accounts of people who trusted in God, and who then went on to achieve great things. God respects life. America should also.
Mother Teresa on abortion:
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts – a child – as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters”
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”
Now, a question for pro-Obama Christians and Jews: Why do you vote for and support a man who condones, defends, and enables the horrendous act of infanticide against the innocent unborn? Is that not one of the most grievous practices in the whole universe – to rip the innocent unborn from a mother’s womb? A place where a baby is supposed to be nurtured and protected? But where instead the mother turns the helpless infant over for execution? And you support that man? The Word of God doesn’t mean anything to you?
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – author unknown
And so today, the slaughter of the innocents continues.
America needs to reverse course and protect and respect the innocent unborn. There’s no other way around it. For the God who established America can darn well take our country from us and bring divine Judgment to our shores. Don’t think he won’t. Thomas Jefferson once noted:
“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 the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)
We are treading on very thin ice and there surely will be a personal and national price to pay for our continued, callous disregard of innocent life.
In November of 2012, protect life and vote Barack Obama and the pro-abortion congressmen and women of Capitol Hill out of office.
May God have mercy on our country.
Reference: Barack Obama on Abortion
Graphic images of aborted babies
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
-The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
Obama’s Rev. Jim Wallis Misreads the Bible
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Though Barack Obama is not a deeply religious man, he realizes that most Americans are, and thus has enlisted a man of the cloth to sell to the public his plans for national redistribution of wealth. The President calls the Reverend Jim Wallis his “advisor” on these matters and chose him precisely because Wallis comes to most political matters with a well-known, decidedly leftist outlook regarding the economy, healthcare and the environment, and with the anti-Israel and sometimes anti-Western tilt voguish in leftist circles, especially religious leftist circles.
Wallis has appeared lately on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” on postings in the Huffington Post, as well as in his own magazine, “Sojourners”. He states that “redistribution of wealth is what the Gospels are all about. Absolutely.” He is also urging an “economic leveling of society.” The Rev. Wallis shares some of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views, just toned down.
Wallis cites the extreme poverty in many parts of the world as a need for us to redistribute our wealth not only domestically but also across the globe, as a way to achieve what he calls “biblical justice”. But if Wallis wishes to alleviate poverty, why would he choose the very redistributionist plans that have caused poverty in those areas and, worse, wish to institute them here, on us? Instead of depleting ourselves of wealth, why not teach others how to achieve their own prosperity?
I suspect Wallis knows all this, but, like so many on the left, is bothered by the fact that some live better than others and that constitutes “inequality.” Rather than lift others, it seems “fairer,” to the left, to bring us down. It is easier, quicker and provides the redistributionist with a sense of moral superiority. Besides, there’s much more glitter in indicting the successful of one’s own country. Like many in the left-wing clergy, Christian and Jewish, Wallis arrived at the seminary with a leftist view of the world which subsequently colored his reading of Scripture.
Though a Democrat, Wallis says, “God is not a Democrat or Republican.” That is true, but neither is He a left-wing ideologue, and it would seem that a loving God would desire prosperity for as many of His children as possible and not wish to penalize those who live by the virtues of hard work, sacrifice, discipline and responsibility that He has bequeathed to us. It only makes sense that God favors a system that provides his children with the greatest opportunities and avenues for economic prosperity and its concomitant condition of human dignity, uniquely sponsored in the Judeo-Christian outlook upon which America’s economic system is fashioned.
The social justice that God expects of us is handled not through statist redistribution of wealth but through acts of charity. In the Old Testament, there are constant calls for giving charity but none for statist redistribution of wealth, nor calls for an economic leveling of society or for a lack of distinctiveness and differences among individuals. Doing so runs contrary to the notion of the individual as a unique and distinctive being, which is the meaning behind “human created in the image of God”, i.e., singular beings.
The Bible calls for acts of charity from the individual, for in being direct and personal, charity has the ability to elevate and ennoble the giver and provider. The direct act of giving changes the person and involves and partners him with God. Unlike Marxism, the Bible emphasizes the individual, not the state, the personal and not the “masses.”
Those who receive charity are taught the virtue of gratitude. When given everything by the state, however, through redistribution of wealth, recipients are taught not gratitude but a sense of entitlement. Imbibing a sense of entitlement negates and corrupts the virtue of work that God himself announces as something good for man: “Six Days Shall Ye Work”. But the leftist egalitarian is unwilling to accept a notion that there are benefactors and recipients, since it seems so “unequal.”
That the Bible never called for redistribution of wealth is obvious when considering that it required from its citizens only a tithing, a 10% giving. It mandated another 5% or so toward functionaries in the temple as a compensation for work they did in behalf of the citizenry, like civil servants. And while government certainly has a safety-net role, the state should eschew policies that enlarge dependency and certainly not manufacture conditions, as is the Obama Administration, that make redistribution of wealth inevitable.
The equality that God seeks is not in a manufactured across-the-board parity but in “Equality before the Law.” In matters of law and redress before the court, all are equal, be they rich or poor. A virtuous and Godly society is not one that redistributes wealth but distributes law and justice across its population.
The Rev. Wallis is correct that Wall Street exhibits “greed,” yet finds nothing wrong with the work-rules and “Cadillac provisions” of unions that are rooted in greed. Nor does he castigate the greediness of millions who, out of a sense of entitlement, do not work or pay but demand to be subsidized from the take-home pay of other people’s labors. Evidently, it is not greed but achievement born of capitalism that bothers Wallis.
A society that is leveled is a society in which all become equally disadvantaged. Yet, many liberals prefer an equality of mediocrity and lack of wealth over one of achievement and prosperity if, in the end, prosperity means some have more than others, even though the poor directly benefit and live better because of the success of others. This is not social justice but socialism, which is a political category, not a moral category.
The greater the ability to create wealth, the more money is available for charity and good works. It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.
The primary theme of the Bible is individual responsibility, not entitlement and dependency. God wants the individual to be robust. The Rev. Wallis and others like him see the Bible as endorsing pacifism, be it pacifism in national defense and security matters or pacifism in economic matters. The religious left doesn’t see man solving problems through robust free-market activity but calls for, as they do regarding environmental challenges, retreat. They lack a belief in man’s ability, in man himself.
It is ironic that men of the cloth endorse the views of Karl Marx who despised the Bible. Marx propounded his message and political outlook almost two millennia after the Bible was written. His outlook is not of the Bible. To him, religion was the opiate of the masses. Marx offered a new opiate for the people: redistribution of wealth and the welfare state. Clergy should think twice before endorsing the views of Karl Marx.
Opinion: Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Scripture also commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17
From religion to our founding fathers to our Constitution we are taught that coveting others property is wrong. The Constitution guarantees us an equal opportunity not an equal outcome. We have the right to prosper and keep the fruits of our labors. This was central to the founding father’s vision for this country. We need to get back to that vision. Quotes on Redistribution of Wealth
A good couple of questions to ask the Obama Redistribution of Wealth crowd are, “Who’s your daddy? Is it God or the government?” If God, he doesn’t need the government to provide for you. It’s not very efficient and the way it’s structured now it’s not even Biblical. What’s more it’s decimating the economy. Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and earning it one’s self. Obama and Company need to get back to Bible basics and give up on their failed socialistic idol worship.
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act
This commentary starts a new series of articles on Obama vs. the Bible that will continue on until Election Day 2012.
It’s no secret that Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. “I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Notice that President Obama’s public service actions are based on his Christian beliefs. Or so he claims.
But what does Barack Obama really believe, and does it coincide with what we find in the Bible? A close examination reveals that what Barack Obama believes and practices are quite often contrary to what Scripture teaches. Traditional, Biblically-based marriage is one such example.
For example, the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant instituted by God (Malachi 2:14), and is a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2). When God created a “helpmate” for Adam, it was a woman (Genesis 2:18-24) whom God created. Thereafter, Adam and Eve became one flesh. The Scriptures are clear that a Biblical Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. For additional information on traditional, Biblical marriage visit here. Notice in the link that one of the purposes of a Biblical marriage is to create Godly offspring.
Concerning traditional marriage, on July 19, 2011 President Barack Obama publicly acknowledged his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The law was passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Evidently, based on his own ideas of political correctness, Barack Obama has turned his back on Christian values and the approved will of the people of the United States and arbitrarily declared The Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Amazing. It’s amazing since this was a personal declaration of Barack Obama and not an approved judgment or ruling handing down by the Supreme Court of the United States. What’s more, Obama’s sworn U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, is refusing to defend DOMA in legal challenges. That’s correct, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, are now arbitrarily violating the law and violating the trust of the American people. Why? According to the New York Times, “Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’ and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.” Obama is already on record as approving of gay civil unions.
Do we need to remind Obama and his politically correct, liberal contemporaries that sexual unions between two men or two women are sinful and not ordained by God? Let’s review the Scriptures on homosexual sin and see what the Bible says on the subject:
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:8-10 – “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”
Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”
There’s no gay marriage approved in the Old Testament; no gay marriage approved in the New Testament; no gay sexual relations approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite – gay sexual relations are condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that. And no gay marriage covenant is seen anywhere in Scripture.
Some may say Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.
It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.
Now, does Obama not realize that there are negative consequences of sin that can effect an entire nation? Did he forget that the sin of one man – Achan (note Joshua 7) – resulted in the deaths of 36 fighting men? And that the sin of King David resulted in a plague that killed 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:15)? Has Obama never read Deuteronomy chapter 28 – the Blessings of Obedience to the Lord and the Consequences of Disobedience? Please remember too that when nations other than Israel got out of line with the Lord, they came under judgment also. So God’s laws and judgments are not just for Israel, or just for America either. That’s why Obama’s unbiblical decisions are a threat to America.
In conclusion, President Barack Obama has turned his back on Godly principles and the lawful will of the American people to oppose the traditional Defense of Marriage Act. Biblically-based Christians (and Jews and others who base their beliefs on the Bible) need to strongly take this into account in the next Presidential Election, and vote President Obama and Attorney General Holder and Company out of office.
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
- The Righter Report
The Moral Foundations of America
America’s God and Country
Whatever America has evolved into today is a separate issue from what America was in the days of the American Revolution. Where did America’s great strength lie then? And what were the moral foundations of America at its inception? The evidence is overwhelming: the founding fathers tell us that our nation was conceived on the principles of the Biblical God and Christianity. Not on Hinduism, not on Humanism, nor Buddhism, nor the writings of Confucius or Islam, or even Deism, but founded on Biblical and Christian principles.
Here are just some of the facts that are seldom taught in America’s public school classrooms:
The most frequently recognized source for political inspiration for the founding fathers was the Bible, which was referenced in some 34% of the founding father’s quotations.
The first reference to God as the foundation of an American colony was noted in the ‘Mayflower Compact,’ dated November 11, 1620:
“….Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of
the Christian faith, and the honour of our king and country, a
voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia;
Do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of
God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together
into a Civil Body….”
Many of the founding fathers recognized that the principles of civil law were inseparably linked to Biblical truths. James Wilson, one of the original Supreme Court Justices, and a signer of the Constitution, explained,
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants…”
Additionally, the United States Supreme Court specifically recognized America as a Christian nation. In the case “Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States” (Feb. 29, 1892, US457-458), Justice Josiah Brewer, following a lengthy and exhaustive search of early American historical literature, commented, “We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth….that we are a Christian nation….”
In another Supreme Court Case, “Zorach vs. Clauson” (1952, US306 307 313), Justice William O. Douglas categorically stated, “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Further, in “United States vs. Macintosh” (1931, 283 US 605, 625), Justice George Sutherland affirmed, “We are a Christian people….affording to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”
Historical revisionists contend the founding fathers were predominately deists. The facts say otherwise.
According to Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas, of the 55 framers, 28 were Episcopalians, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, and there were two each of Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists and Roman Catholics. That left, by Bradford’s counting, three deists and one founder whose religious views cannot be determined definitively.
At the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin noted: “…The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.”
There are many today who believe Franklin was a strict deist, but Franklin here is not only referencing the Bible, but is alluding in part to a teaching by Jesus Christ from Matthew 10:29.
Concerning the outcome of the American Revolution, John Quincy Adams noted, “The highest glory won from the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, John Adams wrote: “The general principles on which the (founding) fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.”
Founding father Noah Webster proclaimed much the same message when he said, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles…This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.”
Time after time, the founding fathers declared similar beliefs. From the archives of Patrick Henry’s personal notes (handwritten on the back of his copy of the “Stamp Act Resolutions,” made public after his death) we read:
“Whether this (new government) will prove a blessing or a curse
will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which
a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise they will be
great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be
miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation.”
Thomas Jefferson was hardly speaking from a strict deist standpoint when he said:
“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 the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice
cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)
“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we
are, who lead our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their
native land and planted them in a country flowing with all
the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4,
1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)
Remember, a strict deist was one who believed God was like a watchmaker, who wound up the universe and thereafter did not involve himself in the affairs of men and nations. Jefferson obviously believed otherwise.
Speaking of Godly principles, Jefferson stated:
“A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never
seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian,
that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
(Jan. 9, 1816 – In a letter to Charles Thomson)
George Washington, the “Father of our Country,” likewise recognized God as supremely important in the American dream. In his first inaugural address on April 30, 1789, Washington remarked:
“It would be improper to omit, in this first official act, my
fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over
the universe.”
On Saturday, October 3, 1789, President Washington said this in proclaiming a day of national thanksgiving:
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of
Almighty God.“
Today, our public schools are in a moral crisis. Washington once noted, “If you remove religious principles from the schools you are going to lose national morality.” How prophetic he was!
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the “Father of Public Schools,” once had this to offer: “The only foundation for a republic is…religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.”
Don’t miss the significance of that last statement: “..without virtue there can be no liberty….” The principle is clear – a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As one writer noted, “Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings).” The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they ultimately become in their worldly obsessions.
Still another founding father, the Reverend John Witherspoon, mirrored Benjamin Rush when he declared, “…Civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue….”
And finally, let’s not forget James Madison, known as the “Chief Architect of U.S. Constitution,” who once had this to say:
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the Cross of Christ.”
This is just a very short list of thousands of such examples that clearly speak of the Biblical and Christian foundations of our Founding Fathers and early America. Along with these there were the church services in government buildings up to and shortly after the civil war; paid chaplains, government authorized missionaries, reliefs of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building, and so on and so forth. Whatever moral foundations apart from Christian and Biblical principles one may argue was second, was not even a close second. The record on that is clear.
And so today, the debate over the moral foundations of America continues, but not in this quarter. America is in a moral and spiritual decline due to the ungodly secularization of this country. “Thou shalt not” has been replaced with, “If it feels good do it.” The wisdom of God has been replaced with the tenets of men; absolute truths replaced with moral relativism, and “Father God” has been replaced with “Mother Earth.” America is now paying the price for this ill-conceived venture. The remedy: A return to Godly values and principles, upon which this nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” was clearly founded.
God bless America.
Recommended readings:
1. America’s God and Country – Encyclopedia of Quotations, William J. Federer
2. Faith of our Founding Fathers, Tim LaHaye
3. Original Intent, David Barton
4. Christianity and the Constitution, John Eidsmoe
The Three Little Trees – A Christmas Story
Intently studying the new Christmas tree that her mother and father had just erected in their foyer, little Christina slowly walked up to it and was immediately taken with the wonderful aroma of pine cones and winter frost that still lingered on its branches.
“Mommy, why do people have Christmas trees,” Christina asked? “Oh, I suppose that the Christmas tree means different things to different people, honey,” the mother cheerfully replied, as she worked the string of Christmas lights through the branches of the tree. “But mommy, what does it mean for us – for you and me and for daddy?” The child-like innocence of Christina’s question made her mother hesitate and stop what she was doing. She turned around and sat down on the floor, crossed her legs and gently lifted little Christina into her lap.
“Christina, honey, I don’t know what the Christmas tree means to other people, but I can tell you about all the wonderful things I think about when I see one.” Let me tell you a little story. And starting with the birth of Jesus, she told Christina all the wonderful news about his birth, his life, his death, and his resurrection, and what it all meant. And then to put it into a child’s perspective the mother smiled and said, “You see, long ago on a mountain top, far, far away, there were three other little trees. And as they started to sprout their branches and reach for the sky, they each dreamed about what they wanted to become when they grew up.
The first tree looked up to the stars and said, ‘I want to be a treasure chest. I want to be covered with gold and filled with precious stones. I want to be the most beautiful treasure chest the world has ever seen.’
The second little tree looked out at the small stream trickling by on its way to the ocean and said, ‘I like the water. I want to be a mighty sailing ship carrying kings on their journeys across the seas. Why, I’ll be the strongest ship in the whole world!’
The third little tree looked down into the valley below and saw the hustle and bustle in the streets and the hectic pace of the people in the village and said, ‘I don’t want to leave the mountain top. I really like it here. I want to grow up and be so tall that when people look at me, they’ll raise their eyes and look up to heaven and think of God. Why, I’ll be the tallest tree in the whole world!’
Years passed. The rains came and the winds blew, the sun shone bright, and the little trees grew tall and strong. And then one day three woodcutters climbed up the mountain .
The first woodcutter looked at the first tree and said, ‘This tree is beautiful. I have something special I want to make from it, and it’ll be perfect for me.’ And with one mighty swoop of his woodcutter’s axe, the first tree fell.
‘Now, the time has come for my dream to come true,’ the first tree thought. ‘Now I shall be made into a beautiful chest, and surely I shall hold wonderful treasures!’
The second woodcutter looked at the second tree and said, ‘This tree is strong. It will be perfect for me.’ And with a swing of his powerful axe, the second tree fell to earth.
‘Now my dreams also will come true,’ thought the second tree. ‘I will be hewn into a mighty ship to sail the seas, and great kings will ride my bow!’
But then the third tree felt her heart sink when the third woodcutter looked her way. She stood straight and tall and pointed bravely to the heavens. ‘Remember, I want to stay on the mountain top, she cried.’
But the woodcutter never looked up. ‘Any tree will do for me,’ he muttered. And with a powerful swing of his shining axe, the third tree thundered to the earth.
The first tree continued to rejoice when the woodcutter brought him into the carpenter’s shop. But his joy was turned to sorrow when the carpenter fashioned him into a simple feed trough for animals. Instead of being covered with precious gold and jewels, he was now covered with sawdust and filled with hay for hungry farm animals to eat.
The second tree smiled when the woodcutter took her into the shipyard. ‘Now, my dreams will also come true!’ she thought.
But no mighty sailing ship was christened that day. Instead the once mighty oak was whittled, hammered, and sawn into a simple fishing boat. She was too small and frail to sail the mighty oceans, or navigate the raging rivers. Instead, crestfallen, she was taken to an inland sea, and there she would spend her days.
The third tree was confused when the woodcutter cut into her strong and weathered timbers, and left her in a cluttered woodpile in the lumberyard. ‘What happened?’ asked the tree that once pointed to the heavens. ‘All I ever wanted was to grace the top of the mountain and point to God.’
Again, the years passed by. The dreams the little trees once had were nearly forgotten. But then, something wonderful happened. In the distance, the angels were heard singing to the shepherds. A bright and shining star began its transit across the heavens, and came to its place of rest above the hewn out timbers of the first tree, where a beautiful young mother placed her newborn son into the feedbox.
‘I wish I had time to make a cradle for him,’ the father whispered. The mother gently squeezed his hand and smiled as the starlight glistened off the smooth and sturdy wood.
‘Why this manger is beautiful,’ she said. ‘There is no need for another.’
And suddenly, the first tree knew that God had honored his dream, and that he was now holding the greatest and most precious treasure in the whole world.
‘God sure works in mysterious ways,’ he thought, ‘but this is better than anything I could have ever imagined.’
Some years later, a kindly stranger and his friends crowded into an old fishing boat. The weary traveler fell asleep as the second tree quietly sailed out upon the moonlit sea. But soon, a terrible storm arose. The rains came, the winds grew fierce, and time after time the waves crashed into the little boat, sending it reeling from side to side. The little tree shuddered and grew afraid. She knew she did not have the strength to carry so many passengers through such a raging storm. Then, the kind but tired traveler awoke. He took hold of the mastline and stood up on the bow of the little vessel, stretched out his hand, and said, ‘Peace, be still.’ The storm stopped as quickly as it had begun. And suddenly, the second tree knew that she was carrying the greatest King who had ever lived, and that in some mysterious way, God had also made her dreams come true.
Shortly thereafter, early on a Friday morning, the third tree was startled when her beams were yanked from the forgotten woodpile. She flinched when she was carried through an angry, jeering crowd. She shuddered when the soldiers nailed the arms and feet of a weary and bleeding man to her cross timbers. She felt ugly, cruel, and harsh. In the middle of the day, the sky turned dark. And when it was over, a terrible earthquake shook the ground, and made the third little tree long for the peace and serenity of its favorite mountain top, and the now-forgotten dreams that seemed so real, not so long ago.
But early on a Sunday morning, when the sun rose and the earth trembled with joy beneath her, the third little tree looked upon the risen Savior, and rejoiced that God’s mysterious love had now changed everything. The third tree remembered her dream – ‘I want to grow so tall that when people stop to look at me, they’ll raise their eyes to heaven and think of God.’ It made the tree glad. Now, whenever people think of that third little tree, they think of God. And surely that was better than being the tallest tree in the whole world.’
“So you see, Christina, God really does make dreams come true, though not always in the ways we expect. When I look at a Christmas tree, I remember the birth of Christ. I see the first little tree that was made into a manger. I remember the second little tree that our Savior rode in and calmed the great storm that rose up. And I remember that last little tree upon which our Lord was crucified, and how precious it also was. These are the things I think about when I see a Christmas tree.”
Glory be to God. And Merry Christmas to all.
Why are Americans so Mad?
From the O’Reilly Factor – Monica Crowley Talking Points – September 7, 2010
After first presenting a film clip from the movie “Network,” where Howard Beale is yelling, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” Monica Crowley (Guest Host for Bill O’Reilly) opined: “That’s how most Americans are feeling these days. Why are we mad as hell? Because since the Democrats took the White House and the Congress, each day, we have awakened to some new horror.
We’re mad as hell about a trillion dollars blown on stimulus that did nothing to stimulate the private economy.
We’re mad as hell about a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate, almost a trillion and a half dollar annual deficit, and a $13 trillion national debt.
We’re mad as hell about the government takeover and destruction of the best healthcare system in the world and it’s $500 billion, 10 year price tag.
We’re also mad about the slimy back room dirty dealing, and the party line shenanigans they used to ram it through.
We’re outraged about the Holder Justice Department’s lawsuit against one of our very own states, Arizona for trying to enforce illegal immigration laws.
We’re furious about Hillary Clinton’s State Department sending the ground zero mosque imam on a taxpayer-funded junket to the Middle East.
We’re worried about a foreign policy that appeases our enemies, disses our friends, and is generally an incoherent and dangerous mess.
We’re angry about monstrous 2,000 page bills that nobody has read before inflicting on us.
We’re incredulous about the cap and trade energy bill, which would amount to the largest tax increase in the history of the world.
We’re ticked off that the president rails against special interests, but buys off the biggest special interest of all, the unions, with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.
We’re angry about far left judges cavalierly dismissing the will of the people.
We’re mad as hell about an arrogant leadership that refuses to listen to us, even as it exponentially expands government in direct violation of what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country. We do not want American exceptionalism being turned into unexceptionalism.
And we’re not going to take it anymore.
Today marks the official start of the fall election season. Rasmussen reports has Republicans leading Democrats in the generic ballot contest by a whopping 12 points. Gallup has the GOP lead at an historic 10 points.
Now, things could change before November, but I think that’s highly unlikely. I don’t know if Republicans will take either or both Houses of Congress, but I do know that there will be a major correction. Like Howard Beale, we’ve have enough. And eight weeks from today, our present leadership will hear our sound and our fury. And that’s the Memo.”
Amen, Monica!
It’s time to fire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their radical, left wing sycophants. And Mr. Obama had better be very thankful that his name isn’t on a ballot also, or he’d be gone as well. Obama may be smart as the world measures intelligence, but he’s a full quart low on Godly wisdom. His legislation and decision-making over the last two years confirms it.
Great American Comebacks!
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ‘empire building’ by George Bush.
He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.
********************
Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American.
During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?”
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?”
Once again, dead silence.
********************
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, ‘whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.’ He then asked, ‘Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?’
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied ‘Maybe it’s because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.’
Ooh-Rah!
-
Archives
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- November 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
