The Righter Report

Was Jesus a liberal?

(Updated June 11, 2016)

By Pete Righter

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” – Ecclesiastes 10:2

Was Jesus a liberal? Regularly, on talk shows, in speeches, in the liberal media and in Hollywood, we hear all across America that “Jesus was a liberal.” He ate with prostitutes, he opposed the religious establishment, he helped the poor, he didn’t cast stones and judge sin (i.e. the adulteress), and assuming there is a Hell in the liberal mind, he wouldn’t send anyone there. Jesus would also surely embrace (illegal) aliens.

Really?

We’ll take a closer look at some of these claims, but first we need to recognize some of the major influences of modern liberalism:

“So, I think we  need to clarify that modern American liberalism, or ‘progressivism,’ is a particular ideology informed by the social, political, religious, and sexual philosophies of guys like Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx — the ‘pillars of unbelief,’ as Peter Kreeft calls them. Contemporary Western liberalism — with its defense of abortion, gay ‘marriage,’ relativism, forced wealth redistribution, pornography, massive government, and its attacks on the family, faith, life, and liberty — is truly a unique abomination.

When you claim Jesus as a liberal, you are putting him under the same umbrella as these men. But if The Lord were to come back, call you up into the mountain like Peter, James, and John, and bless you with another scene like the Transfiguration, somehow I doubt that, instead of making Moses and Elijah appear before you, He would summon the souls of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.” – Matt Walsh Satan is a Liberal

Now, let’s look at some of the claims that Jesus was a liberal.

Jesus ate with prostitutes and sinners:

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. – Matthew chapter 9

Here we see the reason Jesus ate with sinners – Jesus was a spiritual doctor attending to sinners. The context shows they were not well – they were in fact “sick” with sin. He wasn’t there to condone or embrace their sins, but to lead them to righteousness. And just what exactly do you think would happen today if Jesus (or even better, one of his followers) attended a liberal dinner party and started telling them to give up their worldly pursuits and attitudes and live for Christ and righteousness? You’re right. They would quickly escort him out the door.

Jesus opposed the religious establishment:

This argument would have you believe Jesus would not approve of today’s churches and religious organizations.

The reason Jesus was so opposed to the Sadducees and Pharisees (the religious “establishment” of his day) is that they were teaching the doctrines of men, vs. the truths of God. This is evident in Matthew chapter 23 (Jesus speaking):

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are…you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness….you are full of greed and self-indulgence…. You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

So it wasn’t the religious establishment, per se, that Jesus condemned, but a corrupt and hypocritical power structure that taught and practiced principles contrary to what God and the Bible embrace. Logically, then, Jesus would not disapprove of churches or a modern religious establishment that embraced, taught, and practiced righteous, Biblically-based principles. And that is exactly what a great many of today’s churches do. We should also not paint with a broad brush of condemnation all churches, because some are unbiblical.

Jesus helped the poor, so he must be a liberal!

What!? Conservatives are opposed to helping the poor?

That’s not what the studies show. In the following article there’s example after example of how conservatives out-give liberals in both time and money: Conservatives are More Liberal Givers

Liberals are generous, though, WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They also consider Obama’s socialistic “Redistribution of Wealth” economic scheme to be just what the doctor ordered for the poor. But as is documented in Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth, that’s ridiculous.

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).

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.

Redistribution of Wealth actually COVETS what other people have, and make. Scripture 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 equal opportunity – not an equal outcome.

Next, Jesus didn’t make judgments about people’s sins.

Well he sure did with the scribes and Pharisees (see examples above)!

But the scripture most often referenced in this argument is the sin of the adulteress in John chapter 8.

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.

The kicker, of course, is the following verse, which the liberals love to ignore. Jesus said to the adulteress,

“Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Now, what happens if people don’t obey Christ’s command to turn from their sins? One of the answers can be found in John chapter 5. Jesus had just healed an invalid and then said to him,

“Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”

In another example, Jesus said the following in Revelation chapter 2:

“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.”

So, Jesus did make judgments regarding people’s sins, and what’s more he assigned either a warning of judgment, or a judgment itself, as a consequence. All this is before the final judgment after a person dies.

Here’s another liberal mantra:

“Jesus / God loves everyone and would never send anyone to Hell.”

Another fallacy. Jesus had many teachings concerning Hell and Judgment.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” – John 3:36

“I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” – John 8:24

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” – John 14:6

“But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” – Luke 13:3

Need more? What did Jesus say about Hell?

One more, from Luke 16 – The Rich Man and Lazarus:

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.”

‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”

Here’s another liberal fairy tale: Jesus is fine with alternative lifestyles such as homosexual relations and shacking up.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, fornication (including “shacking up”) and homosexual relations are identified as sins that will assuredly keep the violators from entering heaven.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Other scriptures identifying gay sexual relations as being sinful can be seen Here

Some argue that 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.

But the liberals will protest, and argue that these are loving relationships, and God embraces those who love.

Does that mean that God embraces adulterous relationships where the participants are in love with each other? Not a chance. Adultery is condemned in the Ten Commandments. Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 above.

In addition, 1 Corinthians 13:6 makes it real clear that love and sin do not go together:

“Love does not rejoice in iniquity.”

And one more from Romans 13:10:

“Love does no harm to a neighbor.”

Love does no harm to a neighbor, such as enticing one’s neighbor into a sinful relationship that has negative temporal and/or eternal consequences.

What does the Bible say about transgenderism and “transgender bathrooms”?

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5

Then we have this claim:

Jesus would certainly approve of (illegal) aliens coming to America.

Here I differentiate between LEGAL immigration (which I favor) and ILLEGAL immigration. Would Jesus approve of illegals breaking American laws by entering America in the first Place? Would Jesus approve of the liberals bankrupting America when providing illegal aliens with trillions of dollars in benefits, some of which aren’t even available to American citizens or our beloved Veterans? Would Jesus approve of the mayhem caused by illegal alien criminal activity: murders, robberies, rapes, DWI manslaughter, etc.? And where does it say in the Bible that Jesus won’t love and bless illegal immigrants if they stay in Mexico? Would Jesus approve of illegal sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, where a beautiful young lady by the name of Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who had amassed numerous felony convictions? I don’t think so. God created borders in the Old Testament, and he did that for a reason, so that tribes and nations would know the limits of their boundaries. And it doesn’t seem proper for tens of millions of illegal aliens wanting to turn America into the same kind of third world Hell-hole from which they came.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero put it this way:

“Nor did the Bible request that the decency we extend to strangers result in national suicide. It never encouraged a virtual open-border situation where the host country is overrun and loses its indigenous culture, suspends its laws, invites disarray, or forfeits its ability to flourish as a unique and sovereign entity.”

Many in the liberal left want to abolish our borders and make America into an “International Community”. However, they disregard or abrogate the laws of American immigration, as does Barack Obama when he issues unconstitutional executive orders. America is either a nation of laws or we are an anarchy state. If people want different border laws they should go through the United States Congress, which has power to make or change our immigration and border laws.

Does Leviticus 19:34 justify illegal immigration?

“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” – Leviticus 19:34

Answer:

“Modern nations are not expected to adopt Israel’s civil law. It is hoped that authorities will enforce laws that provide peace and security to the citizens (Romans 13:1-7) and be founded on a respect for God’s ethical law, such as no murder, no stealing. But God leaves the specifics to each nation. The biblical view of illegal immigration, therefore, is that an immigrant is illegal if they break the law. In many countries, it is illegal to immigrate outside of proper channels. Romans 13:1-7 says that residents of a nation are required to obey the laws of that nation. If it is illegal to immigrate, God’s view is to not do it.”

http://www.compellingtruth.org/illegal-immigration.html

Romans 13:1-5 – “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

Finally, conservative commentator Ann Coulter does a nice job of laying these arguments out in her article Beware of liberals who come in evangelicals clothing.

Beware of Liberal Facism / Fundamentalism

Rather than truly embrace “freedom,” liberal fundamentalists seek to control virtually every aspect of the lives of the masses that are unfortunate enough to be under their fundamentalist rulership. They seek to outlaw SUV’s, impose smoking bans while advocating marijuana use, prohibit freedom of religious expression in government and public schools, advocate compulsory training in politically correct opinions and attitudes, seek to enforce Bible bans in schools and the workplace, embrace a de-facto litmus test against pro-life judicial nominees, seek to criminalize pro-life demonstrations through the RICO racketeering statute, try to squelch legitimate religious speech via “hate-speech” laws, and generally engage in a wide range of behaviors designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and traditional American values. They violate the 2nd Amendment by legislating gun bans and other unconstitutional restrictions; dictate school lunch menus and what kind of light bulbs you can use; impose a horrendous, bureaucratic healthcare program on people who are otherwise happy with their current choices; use the IRS to target conservative groups who apply for non-profit, free speech status, and violate the rights of free press individuals and organizations under the guise of protecting national security. They also have their own politically correct liberal lexicon, which changes Good Friday to “Spring Break,’ and Christmas to “Winter Holidays.” And those just for starters.

Conclusion: Jesus may not have been a right-wing fanatic, but he sure as heck wasn’t a left-wing liberal. Keep in mind that liberalism is a worldly philosophy that takes liberties with the Word of God, twisting or abrogating the principles and commandments of God and replacing them with the subjective tenets of mankind. Liberalism is a scourge to mankind and an affront to God. As Carl Henry noted,

“America has turned its back on God. It mocks God. Instead it worships a twentieth century Baal, incarnated in sensuality, materialism, and immorality of every kind.”

America needs to turn from its liberal, anti-God agenda and return to traditional American values before we lose our country.

– The Righter Report

Advertisements

May 31, 2016 Posted by | America, Evangelical, God, Government, Human Interest, Politics, Theology, Theology Articles | Leave a comment

God’s Warning to America

“On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Messianic Jewish Rabbi, Jonathan Cahn, spoke at the fourth annual Washington—A Man of Prayer event held at the U.S. Capitol, delivered on the 226th anniversary of the inauguration of President George Washington. Cahn’s sermon in Washington was the most anointed prophetic utterance he has ever given, and many members of the Congress were in attendance.” – Freedom Outpost

A Powerful message by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, a Messianic Jewish Rabbi. There’s no question in my mind that this was a God-given, Spirit-filled message, and a warning to our nation.

Excerpt: “Supreme Court Justices, can you judge the ways of God? Can you, with manmade verdicts, overrule the eternal laws of God? There is another court, and there is another Judge. And before Him, all men and all judges will give account. If a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised if the Almighty should pass judgment on that court and that nation?”

A transcript of the speech can be found at: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/rabbi-jonathan-cahn-gives-america-a-final-warning/

– The Righter Report

May 7, 2015 Posted by | America, Evangelical, God, Government, History, Human Interest, Theology, Theology Articles | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Founding Fathers and Slavery

by David Barton – 07/2011

Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule [“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Matthew 7:12]. 1

Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2

The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4

Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound of abolition” for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7

Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8

Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, “[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” 9

Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 10 John Adams, Signer of the Declaration, one of only two signers of the Bill of Rights, U. S. President

But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue. 11 Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 12 Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration

As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].13 John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania

I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature. 14 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection. 15 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 16 John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 17 Thomas Jefferson

Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 18 Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress; Signer of the Declaration

I have seen it observed by a great writer that Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us, who profess the same religion practice its precepts, and by agreeing to this duty convince the world that we know and practice our truest interests, and that we pay a proper regard to the dictates of justice and humanity! 19 Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, Framer of the Bill of Rights

I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 20 William Livingston, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of New Jersey

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 21 Luther Martin, Delegate at Constitution Convention

As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 22 George Mason, Delegate at Constitutional Convention

Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 23 Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 24 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice. 25 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, Founder of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, President of the National Abolition Movement

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 26 Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution

Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 27 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 28 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 29

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 30 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 31 Vermont in 1786; 32 New Hampshire in 1792; 33 New York in 1799; 34 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 35

Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 36 and signed into law by President George Washington, 37 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 38 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 39

The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.

Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address “To the People of Color,” he explained:

Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 40

While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 41 Thomas West

It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 42 Walter Williams

Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:

Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 43

While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

Endnotes

1. Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776.

2. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. III, p. 342, to the English Anti-Slavery Society in June 1788.

3. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. I, p. 34.

4. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.

5. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.

6. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. I, p. 4.

7. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903),Vol. I, p. 28, from his autobiography. See also James Madison, The Papers of James Madison (Washington: Langtree and O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. III, p. 1395, August 22, 1787; James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, editor, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910), Vol. IX, p. 2, to Robert Walsh on November 27, 1819.

>8. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1834), 1st Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1518, March 22, 1790. See also George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot, Patriot and Statesman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 182.

9. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

10. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1854) Vol. IX, p. 92, letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

11. Samuel Adams, An Oration Delivered at the State House, in Philadelphia, to a Very Numerous audience; on Thursday the 1st of August, 1776 (London: E. Johnson, 1776), pp. 4-6.

12. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper on April 23, 1820.

13. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson(Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1891), p. 324, to George Logan on January 30, 1804.

14. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. 5. p. 356, letter to Mr. Anthony Benezet on August 22, 1772.

15. Annals of Congress, Joseph Gales, Sr., editor (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834), Vol. 1, pp. 1239-1240, Memorial from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society from February 3, 1790 presented to Congress on February 12, 1790.

16. John Jay, The Life and Times of John Jay, William Jay, editor (New York: J. & S. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 174, to the Rev. Dr. Richard Price on September 27, 1785.

17. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia(Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, pp. 236-237.

18. Richard Henry Lee, Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee, Richard Henry Lee, editor (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, p. 19, the first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses of Virginia.

19. Richard H. Lee (Grandson), Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. 1, pp. 17-19, the first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses of Virginia.

20. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 358, to James Pemberton on October 20, 1788.

21. Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately Held at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Eleazor Oswald, 1788), p. 57. See also Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: 1836), Vol. I, p. 374.

22. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: 1836), Vol. III, pp. 452-454, George Mason, June 15, 1788.

23. William Armor, Lives of the Governors of Pennsylvania(Norwich, CT: T. H. Davis & Co., 1874), p. 223.

24. Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.

25. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 1, p. 371, to Richard Price on October 15, 1785.

26. Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48.

27. James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. II, p. 488, lecture on “The Natural Rights of Individuals.”

28. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 81, from “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture X on Politics.

29. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786.

30. A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Benjamin Edes and Sons, 1780), p. 7, Article I, “Declaration of Rights” and An Abridgement of the Laws of Pennsylvania, Collinson Read, editor, (Philadelphia: 1801), pp. 264-266, Act of March 1, 1780.

31. The Public Statue Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, pp. 623-625, Act passed in October 1777 and Rhode Island Session Laws (Providence: Wheeler, 1784), pp. 7-8, Act of February 27, 1784.

32. The Constitutions of the Sixteen States (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1797), p. 249, Vermont, 1786, Article I, “Declaration of Rights.”

33. Constitutions of the Sixteen State (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1797), p. 50, New Hampshire, 1792, Article I, “Bill of Rights.”

34. Laws of the State of New York, Passed at the Twenty-Second Session, Second Meeting of the Legislature (Albany: Loring Andrew, 1798), pp. 721-723, Act passed on March 29, 1799.

35. Laws of the State of New Jersey, Compiled and Published Under the Authority of the Legislature, Joseph Bloomfield, editor (Trenton: James J. Wilson, 1811), pp. 103-105, Act passed February 15, 1804.

36. Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894), Vol. I, pp. 288-289.

37. Acts Passed at a Congress of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1791), p. 104, August 7, 1789.

38. The Constitutions of the United States (Trenton: Moore and Lake, 1813), p. 366, “An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio,” Article VI.

39. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXVIII, pp. 407-408, to Robert Morris on April 12, 1786.

40. Richard Allen, The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Right Rev. Richard Allen (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), p. 73, from his “Address to the People of Color in the United States.”

41. Principles: A Quarterly Review for Teachers of History and Social Science (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute Spring/Summer, 1992), Thomas G. West, “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” p. 5.

42. Walter E. Williams, Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993, “Some Fathers Fought Slavery.”

43. Walter E. Williams, Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993, “Some Fathers Fought Slavery.”

Reprinted with permission from http://www.wallbuilders.com

– The Righter Report

January 20, 2015 Posted by | America, God, Government, History, Human Interest, Politics, Theology Articles | , | Leave a comment

Liberal Fundamentalism

Liberal Fundamentalism

Someone once said to beware of zealots.   Yet Jesus Christ was a zealot for the ways of God, and Mother Theresa was certainly a zealot for helping the sick and needy.   Being a zealot, then, is not automatically a prescription for hated.  Likewise religious fundamentalism.  One can certainly believe in the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ and Biblical values, practice them, and not be a threat to society or one’s neighbors.  On the other hand, there’s a new and particularly pernicious brand of fundamentalism making the rounds in America today – liberal fundamentalism.

Liberal Fundamentalism is a failed and destructive philosophical enterprise, replete with a host of anti-Biblical, pseudo-religious doctrines that seeks to elevate the ways and “wisdom” of man above the wisdom and desires of God.  Its principle aim is the sacking of traditional Judaic and Christian values and beliefs, which are revisited through suspect liberal “scholarship” or politically-correct dogma in an effort to replace them with the tenets of moral relativism and the failed social doctrines of today’s liberal elitists.

Why is secular moral relativism dangerous?  Because it believes a righteous God does not exist, and that He will not involve himself in the affairs of men and nations.  Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“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.”

The genesis of today’s liberal fundamentalists was the anti-traditionalist hedonists of the 1960’s and 70’s. They advocated fornication and “free-love,” illegal substance abuse, moral relativism, contempt for authority, and they enjoyed a prosperous America founded on the very hard work and enterprise they sought to distance themselves from. The freedoms they enjoyed were purchased by the blood, sweat and personal sacrifices of the very forefathers they held in contempt.

Personal responsibility, self-restraint and self-sacrifice are often foreign concepts to them. “Right and wrong,” and “good and evil” were arbitrarily revisited, for such concepts had no objective meaning to them. They had no objective rationality for their hedonistic philosophy other than if it “feels good, let’s do it.” The only righteous cause that qualified for support in their “progressive” mindset was the undermining and revising of traditional American and Judeo-Christian values. They said not to trust anyone “over 30,” and now they’re over 30 and say, “Trust us, and what we teach!”

One of the most revered mantras of liberal fundamentalism is “equality.” The net effect of this experiment, in many instances, was to elevate women via the degradation of men, promote racial equality by instituting race-based preferences and reverse discrimination, engender class warfare against people of means via their socialistic redistribution of wealth schemes (a concept centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than relying on one’s own personal initiative and work ethic), and elevate wickedness (sodomy, fornication, pornography, and other ungodly behaviors) to the plateau of respectability at the expense of traditional Godly values.

Along with the failed liberal concept of equality was the mantra of liberal “tolerance.” However, liberal tolerance is not what it appears to be. It is a contradictory, partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one may likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, personal attacks, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Rather than truly embrace “freedom,” liberal fundamentalists seek to control virtually every aspect of the lives of the masses that are unfortunate enough to be under their fundamentalist  rulership. They seek to outlaw SUV’s, impose smoking bans while advocating marijuana use, prohibit freedom of religious expression in government and public schools, advocate compulsory training in politically correct opinions and attitudes, seek to enforce Bible bans in schools and the workplace, embrace a de-facto litmus test against pro-life judicial nominees, seek to criminalize pro-life demonstrations through the RICO racketeering statute, try to squelch legitimate religious speech via “hate-speech” laws (note Canada), and generally engage in a wide range of behaviors designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and traditional American values.

It is certainly arguable, then, that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy.  Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence.    –  Author Unknown

Recommended reading:  Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2006) ISBN 1-4000-5420-6.

In her book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government-controlled schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the “absolute moral authority” of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Beware of liberal fundamentalism!

– The Righter Report

August 19, 2012 Posted by | America, Evangelical, God, Government, Human Interest, Opinion, Politics, Theology Articles | Leave a comment

The Prayer of Minister Joe Wright

Recalling the Prayer of Minister Joe Wright

Note: Joe Wright was the pastor of Central Christian Church in Wichita and was guest chaplain in the Kansas House of Representatives on January 23, 1996. He recited a prayer of confession and repentance that was originally written by Bob Russell, pastor of Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. According to an article in the Kansas City Star dated January 24, 1996, his prayer stirred up considerable controversy and at least one member of the House walked out. Sometime after that in the Colorado House House of Representatives, Republican Mark Paschall recited Joe Wright’s prayer as the invocation, angering still other lawmakers. It was reported that some members there also walked out in protest.

The Prayer:

Dear Heavenly Father,

We come before You today to ask Your Forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, “Woe to those who call evil good,” but that’s exactly what we have done. We have lost our Spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that.

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism; We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism; We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle; We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery; We have neglected the needy and called it self preservation; We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare; We have killed our unborn and called it choice; We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable; We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem; We have abused power and called it political savvy; We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition; We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression; We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of this state and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state of Kansas. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your Will.

I ask in in the name of your Son, The Living Savior, Jesus Christ

Amen.

– The Righter Report

July 29, 2012 Posted by | America, Evangelical, God, Government, Human Interest, Theology | Leave a comment

The Moral Justification of Capitalism

The Moral Justification of Capitalism – The Religious Justification of Capitalism

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

No one would ever have expected that in a Republican primary the single biggest complaint among candidates seeking nomination would be that its frontrunner had taken success and capitalism too far. Mitt Romney appeared to have been blindsided, and thus unprepared, in this phase of the competition, a primary among Republicans, by accusations of “vulture” capitalism, of not bumping himself into a higher but unnecessary tax bracket, and of impropriety, unless he releases to the public twelve years of private tax returns that prove otherwise.

His Republican challengers seem to suggest that his “making too much” renders him an unsuitable nominee for President, of all places, the United States of America. His success and achievement were tarred as a prima facie indication of something unethical and immoral. President Obama and other redistributionists must be rejoicing in vindication now that their assumptions regarding capitalism and “those 1%” have been given legitimacy and credence. But the real long-term casualty of this “too much capitalism” bashing may be not only Mr. Romney but the morality of capitalism itself and with it our vitality, prosperity and national defense.

More than any other nation, the United States was founded on broad themes of morality rooted in a specific and unique religious perspective, that which we call the Judeo-Christian ethos, and within it resides a ringing endorsement of capitalism’s morality. Religion is man’s attempt to ascertain from Scripture God’s guidance toward that which is best for men as individuals and for general society. One thing is for sure: God desires the best for mankind, but, as with everything else in life, its realization requires hard work, the acceptance of periodic setbacks, and the ability to overcome sentimentality in favor of enduring and sometimes uncomfortable principles.

Moral is another way of stating that which ought to be. Something is moral if it is in itself, or leads to, that which ought to be. In otherwords, that which is virtuous. The entitlement, welfare state is a paradigm which undermines the noble goal of achieving personal responsibility. Regarding mankind, no theme is more salient in the Bible than that of the morality of personal responsibility, for it is through personal responsibility that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth, good citizenship, and happiness. The Bible’s proclamation that “Six days shall ye work” is its recognition that on a day-to-day basis work is the engine which, more than anything else, brings about man’s inner state of personal responsibility.

Work develops the qualities of accountability and urgency, including the need for comity with others as a necessary means for the accomplishment of tasks. It ameliorates man’s inner development by making him learn and live by those habits conducive to success. He becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be productive and that his well-being is not an entitlement, thereby engendering the virtue of gratitude toward those that make his well-being possible. And it keeps him away from idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and attitudes injurious to himself and those around him.

Capitalism is not content with people only being laborers and holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of the masses punching in and out of mammoth factories of routine or as service employees in government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism mired as it is in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is dynamic and energetic, cheerfully fostering and encouraging creativity, unspoken possibilities, and the dreams of the individual. Because the Hebrew Bible sees us not simply as “workers” and members of the masses but, rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with specific individuality: our creativity.

At the opening bell, Genesis announces:” Man is created in the image of God” — in otherwords, like Him, with individuality and creative intelligence. Unlike animals, human is not only a hunter and gatherer but a creative dreamer with the potential of unlocking all the hidden treasures implanted by God in our Universe. The mechanism of capitalism, as manifest through investment and reasoned speculation, paves the financial groundwork facilitating our partnership with God by bringing to surface and disbursement that which the Almighty embedded in nature for our eventual extraction and activation. Capitalism makes possible entrepreneurship, which is the on-the-ground realization of an idea birthed in human creativity. Whereas statism demands that citizens think small and bow to a top-down conformity, capitalism, as has been practiced in the United States, maximizes human potential and benefits those close to it. It provides a home for aspiration, referred to in the Bible as “the spirit of life”.

The Bible speaks positively of payment and profit, “For why else should a man so labor but to receive reward?“. Laborers get paid wages for their hours of work and investors receive profit for their investment and risk. The Bible is not a business school manual and, while comfortable with wealth creation and the need for speculation in economic markets, has nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private equity, hedge funds, or other forms of monetary capitalization. What it does demand is honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower’s collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, empathy for those injured by life’s misfortunes, and charity.

It also demands transparency and being upfront regarding one’s intentions. “Thou shalt not place a stumbling block in front of the blind man” goes beyond its literal understanding to include not acting deceitfully and obscuring the truth from those whose choice depends upon the information you give them. There’s nothing to indicate that Mr. Romney breached this Biblical code of ethics, and his wealth and success should not be seen as automatic causes for suspicion.

No country has achieved such broad-based prosperity as has America, nor invented as many useful things or seen as many people achieve personal promise. It is not an accident, but the direct result of centuries lived by the free-market ethos embodied in the Judeo-Christian outlook. It has led to unmatched liberty and, as the Bible attests, nothing is more important to society than liberty: “Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land”. Political liberty is, indeed, dependent on economic liberty. Furthermore, only a prosperous nation can protect itself from outside threats, for without prosperity the funds to support a robust military are unavailable. Having radically enlarged the welfare state and hoping to further expand it, President Obama is validating his cuts to our military under the assertion that defense needs must give way to domestic programs.

Countries that were once economic powerhouses, with abundant jobs for all, atrophied and declined once they, as England after WW II, began adopting socialism. Even King Solomon’s thriving kingdom crashed once his son decided to impose onerous taxes. At the end of Genesis, Joseph decides that his country’s economic security lay in citizens trading-in freedom by giving the state their property in return for food. Not only did the Egyptians become bondsmen to the ruler and state but Joseph’s descendants ended up enslaved to the state.

Those on the religious Left who invalidate capitalism because all do not end up monetarily equal – or as Churchill quipped, “all equally miserable” — are well aware that the Bible’s prescription of equality means “Equality under the Law” and not a utopian equality contrary to human nature and one never achieved in the ruling-class socialism they promote. At the root of capitalism’s detractors is a quest for their own power and an envy of those who have more money. But envy is a cardinal sin and something that ought not to be. God begins the Ten Commandments with “I am the Lord your God” and concludes with “Thou shalt not envy your neighbor, not for his wife, nor his house, nor for any of his holdings”. Envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies that embrace it. Nations that throw over capitalism for socialism have made an immoral choice.

Originally printed (most) in the Wall Street Journal. Reprinted with permission from Rabbi Aryeh Spero.

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at http://www.caucusforamerica.com.

April 8, 2012 Posted by | America, Evangelical, Government, History, Human Interest, Opinion, Politics, Theology, Theology Articles | Leave a comment

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 – America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President

Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act and Gay Marriage

Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion

The Righter Report

October 8, 2011 Posted by | America, Government, Politics, Theology, Theology Articles | Leave a comment

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.

September 8, 2010 Posted by | America, Government, Human Interest, Politics | Leave a comment