Were the Founding Fathers Deists?
Were the Founding Fathers Deists, and why does it matter?
by Pete Righter
One might be surprised at how many people today believe the mantra that the founding fathers were deists, in spite of the historical evidence to the contrary. What’s not surprising in our culture today is that very few people have done their due-diligence on the subject to the point where (1) they understand what deism is, and (2) why it’s important that we understand its influence – or lack thereof – in the founding of our nation.
First, what is Deism?
Deism, the religious attitude typical of the Enlightenment, especially in France and England, holds that the existence of God can be only proved based on the application of reason and the world can be discovered through observation experience and reasoning. A Deist is defined as “One who believes in the existence of a God or Supreme Being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” Deism was often synonymous with so-called natural religion because its principles are drawn from nature and human reasoning. In contrast to Deism there are many cultural or revealed religions, such as Judaism, Trinitarian Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and others, which believe in supernatural intervention of God in the world; while Deism denies any supernatural intervention and emphasizes that the world is operated by natural laws of the Supreme Being. – Wikipedia, “Deism in England and France in the 18th century.”
“Deism has come to denote the theological belief that God created the universe according to scientific laws, but does not interfere in its daily operation.” – The New World Encyclopedia
Deism: “[From Latin Deus, God Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist.” “One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being, but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” – Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941.
Deism is not a religion, but a religious philosophy. It advances the theory that God exists, that He created the universe, but does not intervene in the affairs of humankind. – ushistory.com.
Deism, as it came to be known in Colonial America, was largely advanced by the French philosopher and historian Voltaire, who believed during the “Enlightenment” that God was little more than a watchmaker who wound up the universe and then sat back and did not further involve himself in the affairs of men and nations. This movement, if you will, was part and parcel of an effort to de-Christianize French society and replace Christianity with rationalism and pagan philosophies. The movement was critical of traditional institutions and essentially sought to discard long-revered moral principles and beliefs.
Based on the definitions above and elsewhere, the two principle beliefs of Deism were:
1. Although God created the universe, he did not intervene in the affairs of men and nations. He did not guide men into the founding of nations, or do miracles, or answer prayer, or provide providential protection to his followers.
2. God did not give divine / revealed revelation to man (i.e. the Bible, prophecy, etc.)
I think one would be hard pressed to find many our founding fathers who fit those descriptions.
Why is all this important?
Today we have a “progressive” movement in America which seeks to expunge or minimize any mention of God, along with his moral values and teachings, from the public square and from American’s traditional Godly heritage. Their thinking is if they can eliminate the Judeo-Christian God and his influence from America’s historical writings and from the public square, it will be easier to promote their godless agenda into American life. And if there has to be a god, then it will be one who has no moral agenda and one who will not interfere in the affairs of men and nations – i.e. the god of deism.
The dangers in that kind of thinking are obvious: First, it’s historical revisionism. And second, it negates the providence and moral foundations of God in our American culture and historical foundations.
How widespread was deism among America’s Founding Fathers?
Dr. M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas conducted a study of the Founding Founders to look at this question (whether the Founding Fathers were deists or Christians). He discovered the Founders were members of denominations as follows: twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, and three deists. – Reference: M. E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), iv–v.
That’s correct – only three deists.
I think if one is skeptical of what was just presented then all one needs to do is perform a comprehensive study of quotations from the founders, keeping in mind the two main principles of deism: no divine revelation to man and no influence or interaction in the affairs of men and nations. A good reference source for study is the book in the photograph at the top of this article – “America’s God and Country” – Encyclopedia of Quotations, by William J. Federer. All quotations are referenced.
With this in mind let’s take a look at four of the Founding Fathers most often claimed to be deists by the progressive movement.
Benjamin Franklin
In his younger years, Franklin was influenced by the writings of Robert Boyle, a 17th Century natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, and inventor. As a defender of the Christian faith, Boyle made a series of arguments against deism, but it was the arguments of deists in Boyle’s writings which appeared to have made a more lasting impression with Franklin, and for a time Franklin embraced deism. These influences did not have a lasting effect on Franklin, though, and by the time of the American Revolution, Franklin had done a “180” and was a firm believer in the divine revelation and providence of the Biblical God.
On June 28, 1787, after much gridlock in the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin spoke the following:
“In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.
I have lived, Sir, a long time and 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 they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
It’s pretty obvious that Franklin believed in a God who did involve himself in the affairs of men and nations, and Franklin also alludes to the New Testament as “Sacred Writings,” which also reveal God’s revelation to man. Franklin was no deist.
George Washington
He (Washington) was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.” Washington’s own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity. (David Barton, Wallbuilders.com)
In addition, the inscription on Washington’s tomb at Mount Vernon is this:
WITHIN THIS ENCLOSURE REST THE REMAINS OF GENL. GEORGE WASHINGTON.” Over the door of the inner tomb is inscribed: “I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE.”
Thomas Jefferson
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)
Now, why should Jefferson tremble for his country if God does not involve himself in the affairs of men and nations?
And then there’s this:
“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led 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)
Another oblique reference to the Bible. 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.
James Madison
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion. (David Barton, Wallbuilders.com)
Miscellaneous Quotations
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.”
https://righterreport.com/2011/07/16/the-moral-foundations-of-america-2/
Concluding Remarks: And so it goes, from one Founding Father to the next. The most frequent and most dominate influence among the founders was the Bible (divine revelation to man) which was referenced in some 34% of the founding father’s quotations. The vast majority of the founders believed in an active God who not only gave divine revelation to man, but who was also providential in the affairs of men and nations.
References:
America’s God and Country” – Encyclopedia of Quotations, by William J. Federer. All quotations are referenced.
“The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible. David Barton. May 2008. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755
– The Righter Report
The Bible, Pseudoscience, and the Paranormal
by Pete Righter
“Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who
gains understanding; for wisdom is more profitable
than silver, and yields better returns than gold.”
(Proverbs 3:13)
In the colleges and universities of this world, truth, knowledge, and wisdom remain the keys to man’s continued search for enlightenment and advancement. Yet there is a wisdom often overlooked by today’s universities – the wisdom of God and the Bible, including prophetic revelation. Indeed, the words of the prophet Daniel seem to have come to pass in this generation – “…many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4 – KJV). Men of God such as the late Grant Jeffrey now estimate that our base of knowledge is now doubling every two to five years. Yet without the word of God, man’s quest for knowledge and the Utopian dream are limited to defining life and knowledge in the natural realm. Pseudoscience and the Occult, along with Biblical supernaturalism, are normally relegated to the paranormal. One such book which deals with supernatural and paranormal subjects is Terence Hines’ Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, which does a nice job in discrediting such pseudo-scientific beliefs as reincarnation, psychic healings, ESP, the Bermuda Triangle, ancient astronauts, and astrology.
WHAT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE?
According to Merriam-Webster, pseudoscience is “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” Basically, it’s counterfeit science. It cannot be ‘falsified’. Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis. Pseudo-scientific studies (i.e. previous ‘cold fusion’ studies) cannot be replicated.
A good example of a pseudoscience is astrology, which will be reviewed later on in this article. But first, a critical look at reincarnation.
REINCARNATION
Reincarnation is the belief that people have lived past lives, and that after this present life there will still be other lives to live. Hinduism promotes the concept of reincarnation as it relates to spiritual progression. In Hinduism, people experience both good and evil occurrences – known as “good and bad karma.” These are the results of one’s behavior. If one does good deeds, good karma will follow, but if one’s behavior is evil, bad karma will follow. Through a progression of incarnations, a person will hopefully achieve an enlightened spiritual plateau whereby good overcomes evil, and one will finally be released from the cycles of reincarnation to achieve union with the highest known spiritual reality they call “Brahman.”
In the 1950’s there was the very famous case of ‘Bridey Murphy’ that perpetuated the notion that reincarnation is real. Author Terence Hines relates the details:
“The most famous alleged case of reincarnation is that of Bridey Murphy. In 1952 one Virginia Tighe was hypnotized. She reported details of a previous life in Cork, Ireland, as ‘Bridey Murphy.’ While hypnotized, she spoke in a distinct Irish accent that she did not have normally and described her life in Cork in great detail. Her case was reported as proof of reincarnation in Bernstein’s (1956) best-selling book, The Search for Bridey Murphy. The case was thoroughly investigated several years later. It was discovered that, as a child, Mrs. Tighe had had a neighbor across the street who had grown up in Ireland and used to tell her stories about life there. The woman’s maiden name? You guessed it – Bridey Murphy. Further, it was revealed that Mrs. Tighe had been involved in a theater in high school and had ‘learned several Irish monologues, which she had delivered in what her former teacher referred to as a heavy Irish brogue.'” (Hines 72-73)
The above was a classic example of human and satanic deception. The Bible makes clear that there are three basic types of spirits – the human spirit (Proverbs 18:14), the Spirit of God (Isaiah 61:1), and evil spirits (Judges 9:23). While the Bridey Murphy case was an example of a deception created by the human spirit, it is also clear according to the Bible that Satan is the father of all lies, and as such we can also see his influence and deception behind the scenes – not only in the Bridey Murphy example but also in such false religions as Hinduism. Because of this, we can look at demonic influences in the lives of deceived individuals to recognize the source behind other reincarnation stories and beliefs.
The Bible makes it clear that Satan has been around since before the Garden of Eden. He knows what occurred in the lives of such people as Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Hitler, and every other person who has lived since the creation of mankind. It is certainly not a “reach” then to believe that he and / or his demonic spirits can place false memories of “prior lives” into the unregenerated minds of modern man, especially when those individuals are making an effort – such as a seance – to establish “contact” with higher spiritual powers.
From a Biblical standpoint, reincarnation is a false doctrine.
“It is appointed for man to die once, and after that to face the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
In the Biblical story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Lazarus died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. It was to the rich man that Abraham said, “Between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.” In this parable – which the Dake’s Bible calls “The Story of Two Beggars” – Lazarus begging on earth, and the rich man begging in the hereafter – and which many Christian teachers consider to be a revelation of divine truth, both the rich man and Lazarus have a clear, existing consciousness in relation to those who are still left on the earth. If reincarnation were real, both individuals would likely have been “born again” into a new earthly body.
With reincarnation, man is automatically granted one life after another until he supposedly reaches paradise. Accordingly, there is no need for a savior to cleanse one from one’s sins, so Christ would have died in vain. That is the danger inherent in the teaching of reincarnation – it makes Jesus Christ and his sacrifice at Calvary superfluous.
ASTROLOGY – A PSEUDOSCIENCE
Astrology is the study of the positions and movements of astronomical bodies – in particular, the sun, moon, and planets – and their supposed effect on life and events on earth. Astrology was studied among the ancient Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese, Etruscans, and the Chaldeans of Babylonia. The Chaldeans are credited with the origin of astrology in a primitive form, probably as early as 3000 B.C. Terence Hines states that the first evidences of astrology date back more than 4000 years, and originate in the area of Mesopotamia (Hines 141). As to the realm of scientific research, astrology is considered a pseudoscience. It is totally devoid of having any meaningful, verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate its claims.
To begin with, current astrological signs (Libra, Aquarius, etc.) are out of conjunction. Hines writes:
“Astrology fails to take into account the astronomical phenomenon known as precession. The assignment of certain dates to certain signs of the zodiac (e.g., Aries ruling the period from March 21 to April 19) was made 2000 years ago, and has been followed by astrologers ever since. When it is said that the sun is “in” Aries between March 21 and April 19, this means that the sun, as seen from earth, is in the same part of the sky as is the constellation Aries. The correspondences between the twelve constellations of the zodiac and their assigned dates were correct 2000 years ago – but not today. The earth ‘wobbles’ slowly as it rotates and because of this the position of the sun relative to the constellations of the zodiac (as seen from earth) changes over the centuries. By now, the difference is almost one complete sign, so the sun in not in Aries from March 21 to April 19, but in Pisces for most of that period. Thus, if you are an Aries (born between March 21 and April 19), the sun was almost certainly not in Aries when you were born, but in Pisces!” (Hines 144).
Secondly, early astrologers never predicted the existence of the outer three planets, and never had the slightest hint that the planets existed until astronomers discovered them. Today, astrologers claim to understand the astrological influences of the three new planets. Astrologer Linda Goodman (1968) explains astrology’s failure to note the influences of the three ‘new’ planets before their discovery by saying that a planet doesn’t have any astrological influence until it is discovered (Hines 145-146). How humorous!
Third, scientific research dispels the notion that sun signs influence an individual’s personality. Hines again relates:
“The characteristic personality of the extrovert seems to be nicely defined in the typical description of Aries: bold, assertive, aggressive, self-confident, determined. An obvious astrological prediction, then, is that more extroverts than introverts should be born under Aries.” (Hines 148)
The astrologer’s claim is that a romantic couple’s compatibility is determined, at least in part, by their astrological signs. Hines cites the studies of Dean (1977) and Culver and Ianna (1984) that revealed, “no influence of sun signs on marriage or divorce rates” (Hines 154). People were getting divorced at a uniform rate no matter what their sun signs were. Hence, the absence of sun sign compatibility.
From a Biblical perspective, Romans 1:25 comes to mind:
“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and
worshiped and served created things rather than
the Creator….”
The sun, moon, and planets are the created things – God is the Creator. Astrology is a pseudoscience and should not be relied upon as a meaningful indicator of astrological influence.
FAITH, PSYCHIC AND HEALINGS OF THE OCCULT
In the world of genuine healing miracles, we need to understand that some practitioners who claim to heal “in the name of Jesus” are out and out frauds. Hines tells the story of the 1986 investigation of “Faith Healer” W.V. Grant, who years ago operated out of Dallas, Texas.
“We arrived at the Brooklyn Academy of Music well before the service was scheduled to start. During the healing portion of his services, Grant typically walks up to people in the audience, asks them to stand, if they’re able, and announces their name….and what they are suffering from. How does Grant get this information? Our investigation confirmed what (psychic investigator) Randi had reported earlier. Before the service starts, members of Grant’s staff would walk through the hall and chat with those who had arrived early. These people are actually being pumped for information, which is then reported to Grant. Randi, after attending one of Grant’s services in Florida, found crib sheets listing information about people who were “cured” in the trash. It was also noticed that one of Grant’s staff was using hand signals to let the reverend know what part of the victim’s body was “afflicted.” (Hines 240)
In a similar manner, “healer” Peter Popoff also conducted fraudulent miracle services. His staff also pumped information from various people prior to the service, and this information was radioed to Popoff from an outside transmitter to a tiny receiver he had in his ear. These broadcasts were subsequently picked up and recorded by a communication specialist working for psychic investigator James Randi (Hines 240-241).
From an occult viewpoint, author Kurt E. Koch, a missionary and sincere servant of God, notes numerous instances of occultic healings that he has observed during his life. In his book, Occult Bondage and Deliverance, he gives the following example as evidence of Satan’s work:
“During my various visits to England I have frequently come across the tracks of one of the most dangerous healers of the Western world. His name is Harry Edwards. Edwards, who today calls himself a spiritual healer, first visited a spiritualistic meeting when he was in his early forties. He was soon told at the seances that there were spirit guides who wished to cooperate with him. It was about this time that he had his first experience of “absent healing” (note Edgar Cayce, later in this work). He was told by a friend about a person who was suffering from consumption, pleurisy and hemorrhage….he was able to see the patient clearly. Later he was informed that on the very night he had commenced healing, the victim of consumption had begun to improve: his fever had abated, his hemorrhage stopped and the pleurisy ceased. It is quite enlightening to note that Edward’s healing power stems from his spirit guides on the other side….(and) has nothing to do with ‘the Christian theory of vicarious atonement'” (Koch 44-45).
Koch provides numerous examples of occultic healings and spiritual possession, along with their detrimental consequences, in his book, Occult Bondage and Deliverance. He also provides scriptural confirmation that occultic healings can take place, to wit:
“But quite obviously healings do take place. The question is, what is the force behind the healing? We have many passages in the Bible recording the ability of sorcerers to work miracles. We need only think of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses in Exodus 7, or of the demonic signs and wonders mentioned in Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 and Revelation 13:13 and 16:14” (Koch 47).
Biblically, it is clear that true, Godly gifts of healing do exist:
“To one there is given through the Spirit the message
of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge….
to another faith….to another gifts of healing….”
(1 Corinthians 12:7-9)
Outside of the practice of medicine, man has no power by his own nature to perform miracle healings. Miracle healings can only occur through two known spiritual forces – Satan, and God, through His Holy Spirit. And Koch makes clear, time and time again, that the spiritual healings of Satan come at the expense of one’s spiritual estrangement from God.
PSYCHICS AND PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
Psychics such as Jeane Dixon, Dorothy Allison, Lou Wright, and numerous others, claim to have a supernatural connection through which they are able to predict future occurrences. One of the most famous of these from medieval times was a man by the name of Michel Nostradamus (1503-1566). He was popularized in a documentary hosted by Orson Welles entitled, “The Man Who Saw Tomorrow.” Hines takes note of many of Nostradamus’ prophetic revelations, including the predictions of Hitler, fighter aircraft, the atomic bomb, and even the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Hines notes, “….These prophecies (of Nostradamus) are only seen to be accurate after the fact. No one has ever used them to make correct predictions about what is going to occur before it occurs” (Hines 40). For instance, it is claimed that one verse (Century 1, verse 64) specifically predicts the advent of fighter aircraft and the atomic bomb:
They will think they have seen the sun at night
When they will see the pig half-man;
Noise, song, battle, fighting in the sky perceived,
And one will hear brute beasts talking.
Hines notes that this is a far cry from any specific prediction of fighter aircraft and atomic weapons (Hines 41).
In my collegiate course on pseudoscience and the paranormal at Columbus State University in Columbus, GA, we were shown that psychics make many generalized, open-ended predictions. For instance a psychic may tell someone, “I see an automobile accident in your future. You will not be harmed though, so don’t worry.” Here it is noted that the person being given the psychic prediction does not necessarily have to be involved in an accident – they may also witness one and think the psychic hit pay dirt.
Psychics make numerous, assorted prophecies. People notoriously are guilty of forgetting about the numerous prophecies they were given that were incorrect, and remember instead the one that accidentally came true. Psychic readers do what is known as “cold readings” – they seem to have no discernible basis other than supernatural insight for the information they give. For example, a psychic may be seeing a young lady for the first time. The psychic notes that the woman is not wearing a wedding ring, but notices she is adorned with a lot of very expensive jewelry (indicating a perceived inclination for wealth). She then prophesies that the young lady will be married in the future and that she will achieve much financial success. She may also state that the woman is now not romantically fulfilled (if the lady says she was just engaged to the most wonderful person she has ever met, but left her engagement ring at home), the psychic will tell her that not until her marriage will she ever know the true measure of romantic fulfillment). It was also revealed that some of the more expensive psychics will use their own staff members to search through a prospect’s garbage looking for insightful information between the time the appointment is booked and the time of the “reading.” Imagine what information might be gained about a person’s financial status and dietary indulgences, etc., should their garbage be investigated!
Edgar Cayce, the “Sleeping Prophet” (known as such because he used to go into a sleep-like trance during his “readings”), lived in the first half of the 20th century. He is famous for not only his predictions concerning the coming second world war, but also for having performed over 7000 “life readings” for individuals, many of which experienced subsequent healings and exhibited a high degree of knowledge not known to mortal man. Though for religious reasons I have dissolved my literature on Cayce, I recall reading that he believed some of the remains of the lost civilization of Atlantis would be discovered off Bimini in “68 or 69.” Indeed, in 1968, off the coast of Bimini, near Andros, in about forty feet of water, the remains of an elaborate, man-made walkway was found and photographed. One historian from Miami duly noted that “Atlantis has been found.” Today, there is a lot of conjecture concerning the origin of the underwater ruins.
From what I had read, I had no doubt that Cayce had a spiritual gift. Later, though, upon examining the holy scriptures, I determined that his gift was occultic. My reasons for this conclusion are as follows:
1. He never spoke of Jesus in the same light as is revealed in the Bible.
2. He believed in reincarnation, which the Bible teaches against (Hebrews 9:27), and had a vision of himself returning to earth in the mid twenty-first century.
3. Many of his prophecies were inaccurate (note Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
4. There were reports that on his deathbed he confessed to his son that he felt sure he had been under the influence of a demonic spirit during his lifetime.
5. Cayce didn’t call sinners to repentance, nor did he stress salvation in Christ.
6. Cayce’s books are generally found in the “Occult” section of bookstores.
Biblically, there do appear to be evil spirits that have the ability to predict certain future events, though I suspect this ability is somewhat limited. A good example of this is found in Acts 16:16:
“Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we
were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which
she predicted the future.”
Later, in Acts 16:19 the Apostle Paul cast the demonic spirit out of her.
The psychics who are involved with demonic spirits can sometimes be very accurate. However, they invariably leave out some small detail that makes a definite difference, or they predict several things that may later come true and one thing that doesn’t come true, and you won’t know which is which. One of these psychic predictions cost my late father $10,000 once in a lawsuit concerning medical malpractice. The psychic (Lou Wright, from Denver) said he should go ahead with his case and that he would win it. He lost, and had to pay both parties legal expenses in addition to court costs.
Biblically, according to Deuteronomy 18:21-22, if a prophetic word is from the Lord, it will come to pass. Approximately 25% of the Bible contains prophetic revelation, and as far as can be determined God has a 100% accuracy rate.
All too often I speak with friends and/or acquaintances who talk about what this psychic said, or what that medium or spiritist, etc., said. I suspect in most cases they have no idea which spiritual power (if any) the psychic is deriving their information from – whether it’s from God or the devil.
For the record, the Bible warns against consulting with psychics and mediums.
“There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord.” – Deuteronomy 18:10-12
I have one rule of thumb if someone is presenting themselves as a psychic, a faith healer, a “diviner of truth,” etc. I would ask them one or more of the following questions:
- “Who is Jesus Christ to you?” If the answer comes back that Jesus is anyone other than the divine and resurrected savior / Son of God, then I would not continue any further. Just hearing back, “Jesus was a good man and a wonderful teacher of the truth” is not enough.
- Or you could ask, “Who or what is the ultimate source of the information you are going to provide me?” If they say it just comes to them then ask them the question in # 1. And don’t let them off the hook until they provide clarification.
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE
Although the Bible is primarily a theological and historical text, there are scientific principles found in scripture. Examples of these can be seen in the following article – Science and the Bible:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
CALCULATING THE ODDS
In the late 1950’s, a mathematics and astronomy professor at Pasadena City College by the name of Peter W. Stoner, calculated the odds of just eight (8) Messianic prophecies about Jesus Christ coming true (some theologians point to there being as many as 300-450 prophetic references to Jesus in the Old Testament). Stoner referenced just eight in his calculations. The odds that one man (Jesus) could possibly fulfill just these 8 prophecies came out to 1 in 10 to the twenty-eight power. That’s 1 chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. See link below. But fulfill those prophecies Jesus did. That’s incredible, and that folks is the signature of God – fulfilled prophecy at a rate much greater than chance.
The Odds of Eight Messianic Prophecies Coming True
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odds-of-eight-messianic-prophecies-coming-true/
In closing, for more information concerning psychic and pseudo-scientific phenomena (such as UFO’s, the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, astral projection, etc.), I invite the reader to review Hine’s text (see below) on these and other related subjects.
As for me and my house, we will praise the Lord!
Works Cited:
Hines, Terence. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Buffalo. Prometheus, 1988. (Available at Amazon.com)
Koch, Kurt. Occult Bondage and Deliverance. Grand Rapids. Kregel, 1971.
– The Righter Report
The Bible – Is it wrong to judge?
“Judge not, and you will not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)
Jesus is not saying that we cannot make judgments about people’s actions, he is saying that we should not be hypocrites if we do. In Matthew 7:5 he says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brothers eye.”
God acknowledges the legitimacy of civil authorities to judge:
Romans 13:1-4: “Everyone must submit himself 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, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For he (the reigning authority) is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of God’s wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Also note Matthew 5:25; Acts 25:10-11)
God has commanded the church to make correct judgments:
John 7:24: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.”
Matthew 18:15-17: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses (note Deuteronomy 19:15). If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector .”
I Corinthians 6:4: “Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church.”
God commands us to judge according to one’s ‘fruits’:
Matthew 7:17-20: “Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit…..every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”
The Saints of Christ will judge the world, and angels:
I Corinthians 6:2: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?”
I Corinthians 6:3: “Do you not know that we will judge angels?”
Should no one ever be rebuked?
Jesus rebukes the teachers of the law and the Pharisees:
Matthew 23:27-28: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones 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.”
John the Baptist rebukes King Herod for adultery and other sins:
Luke 3:19: “But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.”
Stephen rebukes the Jewish leaders:
Acts 7:51-53: “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him – you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.”
God uses people to warn others to turn from their sins:
“When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.'” – Ezekiel 33
Also note all the Old Testament prophets who condemned sin and corrupt moral leadership, and who were persecuted for their discernment and duty.
Finally, when someone accuses you of being judgmental, are they themselves not being critical and judgmental in making that accusation?
But stay quiet, and evil will abound:
“The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to (say and) do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
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
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.
Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at http://www.caucusforamerica.com.
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 http://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
The Sheep, the Wolf, and the Sheepdog
This letter was written by Charles Grennel and his comrades, veterans of the Global War On Terror. Grennel is an Army Reservist who spent two years in Iraq and was a principal in putting together the first Iraq elections in January 2005.
They wrote it to Jill Edwards, student at the University of Washington, who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington.
Ms. Edwards, along with various other students and faculty, apparently are of the opinion that those who serve in the U.S. armed services are not good role models.
To: Jill Edwards, Student, University of Washington
Miss Edwards,
I read of your student activity regarding the proposed memorial to Colonel Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive many angry emails from conservative people like me.
You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naivety. It may be that you are simply a sheep. There’s no dishonor in being a sheep, as long as you know and accept what you are.
William J. Bennett, in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 said, “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people, not capable of hurting each other except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.”
Then there are the wolves who feed on the sheep without mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of horrific, evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it isn’t so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
Then there are sheepdogs, and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the unchartered path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kid’s schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard. So they choose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.
They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go B-a-a-a. Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and when SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.
This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be.
Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter. He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep – that is, most citizens in America, said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one: And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in a hostile environment that would destroy 98 percent of the population.
Research was conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law-enforcement officers. The vast majority said they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When they learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons to crash into occupied buildings, Todd and the other passengers confronted the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers – athletes, business people and parents – from sheep to sheepdogs, and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
Edmund Burke said “There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” Here is the point I want to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They don’t have a choice.
But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.
If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at your door.
This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no distinction. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. On one end is the head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.
Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. It’s OK to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheepdog. Indeed, the sheepdog may just run a little harder, strive to protect a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in battle and spirit with the sheep moving from “b-a-a-a” to “thanks.”
We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a small pat on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And, when our number is called by The Almighty, and day retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the thousands, even the millions, of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.
– Righter Report
Radical San Francisco Chronicle endorses Christian Bashing
Excerpt from Mark Morford’s August 15, 2007 Editorial
“Witness, in other words, the thing that modern Christianity seems to do best, and I don’t mean help justify brutal unwinnable wars or slam gay people or bash women’s rights or promote ignorance of stem cell research or science or music. Because oh hell yes, that’s there for you, in heaps and droves and mounds. I mean the other thing: to fracture. To splinter and divide and segregate. You know, to exclude.”
Opinion:
Editorialist Mark Morford displays, with the apparent consent of the far-left San Francisco Chronicle, the last vestiges of approved bigotry left in America – bashing Christians and Christianity. In doing so, he not only displays an astounding ignorance of the virtue of traditional Christian values, but he puts forth an incomprehensible array of self-defeating arguments that are easily demolished.
For instance, Morford believes that “divisions” caused by moral frameworks are abhorrent to a liberal, utopian society. So… Morford! I guess you’re okay with pedophile murderers? What’s that? You’re not? You mean you want to “EXCLUDE” those monsters and their murderous behaviors from your kid’s kindergarten class? Where’s your vaunted liberal inclusiveness?
You mean you’re okay with hate-filled KKK bigots wanting their own chapters and vitriolic speakers at national NAACP conventions? No way? MORE EXCLUSIONS and DIVISIONS, Morford? SEGREGATE the two? Really!
Or how about, well….you get the drift. Morford is fine with divisions and exclusions and segregation, but only as long as they are contained within the framework of approved, liberal moral relativism. No military recruiters in San Francisco schools either? E-X-C-L-U-D-E THEM!! Do I hear a loud, flushing sound as Morford’s pseudo-progressive hypocrisy goes scatting down the commode?
Then there’s his “brutal unwinnable wars” rant. As opposed to a non-brutal war? What other kind is there? “Unwinnable?” If Morford had been at Valley Forge he would have closed that camp up in a San Francisco heartbeat, and Morford and Company would be speaking the King’s English today. The fact is most liberals don’t have the stomach for the true cost of freedom. If a fight lasts more than six months they’re out of there quicker than a scalded baboon. Not even a lethal dose of Viagra could get them to stand tall when the going gets tough. Move over, Harry Reid and John Murtha– you have a new convert for your next Cindy Sheehan surrender rally.
Morford wouldn’t dare take on any other religious or ethnic group with the same brand of incendiary nonsense he spews out against Christians. But I guess that’s considered main-stream journalism at the San Francisco Chronicle.
You can find Morford and Company at 901 Mission Street in San Francisco, in the heart of the Twilight Zone, where the sign on the front door reads, “Bigots-R-Us.”
– Righter Report
-
Archives
- March 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (1)
- April 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- June 2020 (2)
- May 2020 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- January 2018 (1)
- July 2017 (1)
- March 2017 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Righter Report 