Next Step Church/State Separation Plague


John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

Clearly California legislators either failed their civics classes or are viewing the First Amendment in a reverse Original Intent format:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  -First Amendment on ConstitutionCenter.org

 

Until activist Courts including SCOTUS began dismantling the Religious Liberty in the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, history CLEARLY illustrates the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to mean the government must stay out of all things related to the Christian Church yet Christianity was to be a moral influence on government.

 

Although legal scholars might use an earlier starting point, the big date for SCOTUS revisionism is 1947: Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS decision 5 affirms and 4 dissents. Hugo Black wrote the majority decision and Justices Jackson and Rutledge wrote dissenting opinions. The point being ONE VOTE revised the First Amendment original understanding that stood 160 years of government out of Church but Church being a moral influence on government:

 

Since this ruling in 1947, courts throughout America have looked to this opinion as a watershed from its historical interpretation from the days of America’s Founding Fathers. Justice Black and those supporting his opinion on the Court introduced a completely new element that was and is at variance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment. Justice Black and his colleagues inserted new law into the Constitution that the Supreme Court justices for nearly 160 years had never seen. The historic position of the Supreme Court and lower courts was summarized by Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Brewer, and his majority opinion (Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892) and subsequently enlarged upon in his book, The United States a Christian Nation. (The Truth about Separation of Church and State: Error of Justice Hugo Black; By Stephen Flick; Christian Heritage Fellowship

 

A good read on the issue is Justin Smith’s ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’. Another good read is “How the Supreme Court Twisted the First Amendment and Banned Religion in Public Schools” by Zachary Garris at Teach Diligently.

 

The Dems are perpetuating this assault on Religious Liberty via the Dem sponsored Equality Act (H.R. 5) in the House. The aim of the Equality Act is to force Americans (undoubtedly aimed Biblical-minded Christians) to further accept the godless LGBTQ lifestyle. If the Republican majority Senate passes its version of the Equality Act (S. 788) introduced on March 13, God have mercy on America.

 

What brought these thoughts to fruition though is State legislation in Leftist haven of California. My July 3 news alert from Prophecy News Watch (PNW) informs me a California State bill would force Christian Pastors/Preachers to zip their lips on preaching the Bible about the godless homosexual lifestyle.

 

The California Bill is ACR 99 and it “… would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!” (The bold text is my emphasis of the quote in the PNW article.)

 

If read or hear the Left (these days that includes some Churches who have abandoned the Word of God) tell you, “The Bible does not condemn homosexuality”; those sources are blatantly lying and maybe even twisting the original meaning of Scripture with completely faulty revisionist scholarship. (Just like activist Judges and Justices to the U.S. Constitution.) HuffPo is a classic example of twisted-lying Left-Wing sourcing. If you are a Bible-believing Christian belonging to this Wikipedia list (as of today last updated 7/3/19) of Churches accepting LGBTQ in one fashion or another, YOU are in danger of placing yourself in rebellion to God (choosing the same path of Adam and Eve [godless Adam & Steve or Adriana & Eve]). Rebellion causes God-Separation, aka the Second Death (Genesis 3: 1-9; 1 John 2: 15-17 HCSB):

 

Genesis – The Temptation and the Fall

1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when[a] you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,[b]knowing good and evil.” Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

 

Sin’s Consequences

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze,[c] and they hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. So the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?[Bold text Editor’s – Signifies God-Separation]

 

1 John 2

15 Do not love the world or the things that belong to[a] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For everything that belongs to[b] the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever. [Bold text Editor’s – Homosexuality is only one of many sins of the world separating one from God.]

 

JRH 7/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

Gay Church Flag

 

By MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORG

JULY 03, 2019

Prophecy News Watch

 

Last week, I put out a warning about a bill under consideration in California known as ACR 99. I explained “Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny.”

 

I also tweeted about the bill. I asked: “What? A California bill that would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!”

 

One of my Twitter followers, a younger Christian man, challenged my reading of the bill. He insisted that it did not infringe on Christian liberties. Is he right?

 

Let’s take a look at this bill more carefully. Once we do, you’ll understand why Christian legal organizations, along with pastors and ex-gay leaders in California, are so concerned.

 

The Bill is Bad

 

The final text of the bill states this: “This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.”

 

Is this really so bad? Yes.

 

First, who gave the government the right to issue a call like this? Who gave the government the right to tell religious leaders that they cannot help people with unwanted same-sex attractions pursue change? (Broadly speaking, that’s what “conversion therapy” ultimately refers to. The term, of course, is used in a derogatory way.) If ever there was an overstepping of the separation of Church and State, this would be it.

 

Second, what, exactly, is meant by “equitable treatment of all people of the state”? Based on the findings which form the foundation of this bill, it would mean affirming transgender identity and transgender “rights,” even when those “rights” infringed on the rights of others.

 

And this is not just idle talk. The bill passed it its committee vote and is heading to the California Senate for a full vote. Let’s dig in a little deeper to see exactly what California pastors and religious leaders are facing.

 

The Presuppositions

 

ACR 99 is based on a number of presuppositions, all introduced with the word WHEREAS. Here’s the first: “The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.”

 

Based on this, it would be wrong to believe or teach that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that homosexual desires are disordered. Or that there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Or that a man who believes he is a woman has any type of deficiency. And this is just the first of the 9 “WHEREAS” clauses!

 

Another clause rejects any attempts to change a person’s LGBTQ identity. (This appears under the heading of “conversion therapy.”)

 

And another states that “the stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals.”

 

In other words, if you preach and teach what the Bible says about LGBTQ issues and people, no matter how loving and compassionate you are, you are guilty of stigmatizing them, thereby causing them emotional and even physical harm.

 

The intent of this bill is perfectly clear.

 

The Government Telling Pastors What to Preach

 

That’s why Liberty Counsel issued a warning, stating, “CA RESOLUTION THREATENS PASTORS AND COUNSELORS.”

 

Specifically, the resolution “calls on religious leaders and others with ‘moral influence’ to affirm homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’ and to accept that Christian efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are ‘ineffective, unethical and harmful.’ As a resolution, ACR 99 does not have the force of law but will be persuasive for some policymakers. It will now go to the state Senate for a vote.”

 

That’s why the California Family Council, which is on the front lines of this legislative battle, wrote that “CA Legislators to Tell Pastors What to Preach from their Pulpits on LGBT Behavior & Identities.”

 

Life and Hope

 

And that’s why ex-gay leaders Ken Williams and Elizabeth Woning protested the bill. As Woning wrote, “For us, walking out our faith with biblical conviction means life and hope. Our faith has saved us from suicide and given us freedom to live with clear consciences. We too would like to be acknowledged and affirmed. … Instead, activists attack our efforts to care for like-minded friends by promoting dangerous counseling restrictions and stifling our free speech.”

 

In short, this bill would state that pastors and Christian counselors do not have the right to walk out their faith and live out their biblical convictions.

 

It would stop them from offering the fullness of the Gospel to people with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion. And it would constitute, in no uncertain terms, a frontal assault on their — and our — religious liberties.

 

That’s why it must be resisted.

 

Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.

_______________________

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

___________________

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

© 2019 Prophecy News Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Located in Coeur D Alene, Idaho – USA.
Call Toll Free: 1-877-561-4442
Email: Info@ProphecyNewsWatch.com

 

DONATE to PNW

 

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution


SCOTUS undoubtedly chapped the hide of Leftist Transformists everywhere with its 7-2 to keep the Bladensburg Peace Cross standing on taxpayer supported public land. Read Justin Smith’s thoughts.

JRH 6/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

************************

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution

A Landmark Victory for Religious Freedom 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/22/2019 11:22 PM

 

The Constitution as written, not the personal views of judges, should guide how the American people express their religious faith in the public square.” ~ Emilie Kao, Director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society

 

A fine blow was struck for religious freedom, when the United States Supreme Court handed down a 7 to 2 landmark victory in the case of the American Legion v. the American Humanist Organization, on June 20th 2019, as the majority opinion determined that the Peace Cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland, just outside of D.C., does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The forty foot tall Peace Cross commemorating forty-nine of Prince George’s County men who died fighting in WWI can now remain on public land, property of the State of Maryland.

 

The American Humanist Organization originally filed suit in 2012, and modified the suit in 2014; they forged ahead to force the removal of the Peace Cross, suing the Park and Planning Commission and the American Legion, that originally paid for its erection, in part. The AHO alleged that the presence of the memorial on public land amounted to a government establishment of religion.

 

In the beautiful shape of the Cross, the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial was erected between 1919 and 1925, by Gold Star Mothers and a local American Legion post. The Cross design was provided by the Gold Star Mothers in 1919 to recall the cross-shaped grave markers standing over the thousands of American graves on the Western Front of WWI, with one mother actually referring to this memorial as her son’s “grave stone”.

 

This surely had to be at the front of the majority’s mind, in making their decision, since particularly troubled by opposition’s Taliban-style proposal of chopping off the arms of the Cross, Justice Samuel Alito offered the following in the decision: “Many memorials for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. make reference to his faith. These monuments honor men and women who have played an important role in the history of our country, and where religious symbols are included in monuments, their presence acknowledges the centrality of faith to those whose lives are commemorated.”

 

John Seaburn is the name of one of the soldier’s whose name is memorialized on the plaque at the base of the Peace Cross, having bravely marched off to join the Army in an all African American unit. His great-niece, Alvergia Guyton is one of the few people left with a personal connection to the Cross, stating “It’s been there all my life; it’s history”, and on June 20th seven Justices in America’s Supreme Court agreed with her, leaving John Seaburn’s sacrifice and those sacrifices of Prince George’s Native Sons intact and unsullied.

 

This case did little to untangle the confusion created by past Establishment Clause decisions, since two dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saw it as a clear violation, and those seven who did not, Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Alito all offered opinions that didn’t offer a fix to the underlying problem and the many different past interpretations regarding the intent of the Constitution. So, these sort of issues will continue to manifest themselves, and if anything, this case reveals the importance of Justices who view the Constitution through the prism of Original Intent.

 

And even though “separation of Church and State” is a fallacy and a gross misinterpretation of a passage written to the Danbury Baptist Church by Thomas Jefferson, the AHO vowed to fight on to “bolster the First Amendment” and to “(redouble their) works to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state, brick by brick.”

 

In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg stated: “Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross … ‘ By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”

 

America was founded as a Christian nation, and that’s just a historical fact and a matter of record, but it was founded to also be tolerant of all other religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers’ vision was a country that facilitated all Americans’ free expression of faith even if in the public square, and all across the span of our nation’s history, Americans have used religious symbols to commemorate a variety of meaningful events, whether one speaks of holidays, the Courts and sworn oaths or prayer in State legislatures.

 

[Blog Editor: Many Leftists, Secular Humanists, Separation of Church-State Ideologues and probably other Anti-Christian groups would strongly disagree with Justin’s belief, “America was founded as a Christian nation”. To justify their misguided Anti-Christian attitude you will read the Left-version of cherry picking that actually twist facts. The Left will accuse Christians of cherry picking as well, but the difference Leftist cherry picking often are quoting out of context or using a historical person who represented an absolute minority opinion as in the rare atheist or French-influenced Deist (AND there is quite a difference between a French Deist and an American Christian Deist). Here are some posts demonstrating America’s Christian heritage which trust is not exhaustive:

 

 

 

 

 

President Trump’s appointment to the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rightfully suggested that the Court shouldn’t have heard the case, because the plaintiffs could show no concrete injury other than they were “offended” by seeing it as they pass it. Gorsuch wrote: “This ‘offended observer’ theory of standing has no basis in law … What matters … to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”

 

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the Majority Opinion for the Court, noted: “(The Peace Cross) has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions …  The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim. The Cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent … For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution.”

 

Kelly Shackelford, president of  First Liberty law firm and a defender of religious freedom, who defended the case, exclaimed: “This is a landmark victory for religious freedom. The days of illegitimately weaponizing the Establishment Clause and attacking religious symbols in public are over.”

 

Forever memorialized, these men were regular, ordinary Americans, doctors, farmers and laborers, educators, some in their prime and one in his fifties — already wounded — who probably shouldn’t have been on the front lines. They all had one thing in common. They never came home and they were much loved and sorely missed by those who waited for their return. And one-hundred years after WWI, Americans are still fighting for the concrete ideas these fine American patriots died to give us, the foundation of the First Amendment and its manifested inherent Freedom.

 

Many descendants of these fine men have lived with the Peace Cross all their lives, as it has stood gracing the skyline one mile from D.C. for nearly a century, and they are shocked to their very core that any American would challenge its right to exist, regardless of its placement on public land. Their memories include the story of the mothers who slowly pulled the American Flag from the base of the Cross ninety-four years ago to reveal the names of forty-nine soldiers, American heroes, who made the final sacrifice of their lives in World War I. It’s survived all this time, through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and 9/11 and Enduring Freedom, and now, Thanks to God and the Supreme Court, it has survived its most dire threat and a terrible battle with radical, extreme atheists intent and determined to destroy this much respected and greatly loved memorial simply because it was in the shape of the Cross.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the /editor.

 

Justin O. Smith

 

Thanksgiving Whine, Followed by some Historical Cheese


John R. Houk

© November 19, 2018

This year in 2018 Thanksgiving falls on November 22. If you are a Baby Boomer I am confident you are aware of the cursory history of whence Thanksgiving in relation to American history. Even though a large chunk of that history learned in school is largely legend more than actual history.

 

I have a suspicion the Thanksgiving story as it relates to our American heritage is largely ignored at least Public School today. Why? The centrality of the story of that Thanksgiving story was Religious Liberty and thankfulness to God Almighty. Today, Leftist propaganda and the impact of a Leftist activist Judiciary turned Freedom OF Religion into Freedom FROM Religion. Which first showed up when the Courts made it illegal to pray in school (irony – no more giving thanks to God for your school lunch in class unity). AGAIN, thanks to the activist Judiciary re-writing Constitutional interpretation accepted for nearly 200 years, prayer at Public School football games has been stripped before and/or after the game.

 

This Leftist forced reinterpretation of separating religious faith (in reality – separating Christianity) from anything that receives taxpayer support (mythical Church/State Separation revised interpretation) is contrary to everything representative of the credited first American Thanksgiving. This is the reason I have doubts the true nature of Thanksgiving is taught in Public School.

 

Now that you have consumed a little of my personal whine in reading thus far, I have a little historical cheese that you may find of interest – especially for anyone born after the Baby Boomer generation.

 

I found some history about the Christian Pilgrims (Separatist Puritans) of the Mayflower that landed on Plymouth Rock (in present day Massachusetts) that led to America’s beloved Thanksgiving. The article is by Bradley Birzer found at Intellectual Takeout. Even some Baby Boomers might find history that they had no awareness.

 

JRH 11/19/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

********************

My America, 1620

 

By Bradley Birzer

November 16, 2018

Intellection Takeout

 

Mayflower, 1620

 

In 1620, an extraordinary thing happened.

 

At a small landing on the extreme western edge of the Atlantic Ocean, a boat named “Mayflower” rested just off shore of a rock, soon to be named Plymouth. Lost, but not mortally or dreadfully so, roughly 100 “sojourners” and 30 “strangers” arrived on November 11. With Autumn full blown and winter approaching quickly, the 130 had to figure out how to live with one another, how to survive a New England winter, and, most importantly, how to create a permanent community.

 

We all know the story. It’s been told repeatedly in every grade school in America for the last 155 years, and, in New England, since 1620 itself.  Every school child dresses up as either a pilgrim or an Indian, and we celebrate the harmony of it all. Those of us well beyond the age of school children remember the days of our dressing up as a moment of just and happy innocence, when America really was about peoples coming together, worshiping together, and loving one another without hesitation. We hunted and cooked the turkey, picked the sweet potatoes and cranberries, sat around a table together, and we broke bread with one another.

 

In November of the year of our Lord, 2018, we would do well to remember all of this not with mere nostalgia, but with moral intent. Gender confusions, LGBTQ questions, racial hatreds, social media rages, protesting dissensions, mass shootings, and authoritarian bullyings plague every aspect of our current American society. Some—on the so-called Left and so-called Right—even claim a second Civil War is coming. While this latter seems too extreme and horrific to contemplate, it is worth noting that we as a people have not been this violent or divided since 1968. Maybe it’s time to remember something that we all have in common.

 

Of the 130 members of the Mayflower, roughly 100 were “sojourners”—that is, those who considered themselves Puritan. Even among the Puritans, though, they were an odd sect. To be exact, they were “Separating Puritans.” That is, they believed that England and the English Church had become so corrupt (read: Catholic) that, at any moment, God might declare His mighty and just wrath by wiping the English isles off the face of the globe. As “Separating Puritans,” the Pilgrims could create a new society, one based on a proper understanding of the Gospels, as they interpreted them, as well as based on the early Church as described in St. Luke’s Acts of the Apostles.

 

Mainstream “Non-Separating Puritans”—who were numerically far superior to the “Separating” variety—considered the latter to be not just wrong but downright dangerous. With love as the highest virtue, the vast majority of English Puritans believed themselves a part of a larger Church, no matter how corrupt or Catholic that Church might be. To separate was to divide the body of Christ unnecessarily. Thus, they feared and despised their separating brethren. In what became Massachusetts, the non-separating variety would so out-populate and demographically surround the separating variety as to make the separating variety rather meaningless within a generation or two of initial settlement. All Puritans became one large New England family, more or less.

 

Whatever one thinks of the theology of the “sojourners,” their very attempt and survival in 1620 is nothing short of astounding. Imagine landing in a world completely unlike your own and with winter quickly approaching. There is no “escape.” To return to England would mean a cold death on the high seas. To move into the wilderness would mean settlement with even less knowledge of the land and much greater danger than life on the coast. Further, imagine landing hundreds of miles north of any known European settlement. There is no law, no authority, and no established way of life.

 

Yet, then consider what the Pilgrims really accomplished. Armed with scripture, the English Common Law, some weapons, families (for social stability), and an audacity rarely witnessed in the history of human kind, the Pilgrims made a go of it. To establish the import of the moment of community creation and to solidify their fragile community itself, the Pilgrims wrote a covenant, now incorrectly labeled the “Mayflower Compact.” While the re-naming of this document demands its own essay, suffice it to note here: New England historians and archivists employed the name “Mayflower Compact” for the first time ever in the early 1790s. Attempting to define American history from Plymouth Rock, not from Charleston or some other southern port of entry, the New Englanders of the 1790s renamed the document so as not to put off non-religious Americans. Compact, after all, was more acceptable for a secular, liberal, and Lockean people. Its original name—the Plymouth Combination—made its authors too much into exactly what they were—a radically religious sect of people. When the Pilgrims used “Combination,” they meant it quite literally. Combination was the English term for “covenant.”

 

It’s worth reproducing here:

 

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great BritainFrance, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of EnglandFrance, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

 

Once again, just imagine the audacity. With no king, no judges, no lawyers, no bureaucrats, and no bishops, a small group of people asserted the right to govern themselves as they saw fit. Though only half of the sojourners and half of the strangers made it through the winter of 1620-1621, it would be impossible to call the experiment a failure. After all, half did survive, rule themselves, and established the pattern for almost all settlement of what would become the United States.

 

This glorious November as the election cycle brings even more bitterness, more anger, and more division, it’s well worth remembering a time that we all share in common—the real founding of America by a group of ordered, well-armed, and determined Christian families. Though I’m a Kansan Roman Catholic born in the Summer of Love, I can state with certainty, as I remember the audacity of the “sojourners” and “strangers,” this is my America.

 

This article has been reprinted with the permission [to Intellectual Takeout] of the Imaginative Conservative.

_____________________

Thanksgiving Whine, Followed by some Historical Cheese

John R. Houk

© November 19, 2018

_____________________

My America, 1620

 

Copyright © 2017 Intellectual Takeout. All rights reserved. | 8011 34th Avenue South, Suite C-11 – Bloomington, MN 55425 

 

About Intellectual Takeout

 

Like you, we are deeply troubled by the growing divisions within America. Discussions today quickly become heated, emotional yelling matches that drive people further apart. Many of us even fear making our opinions known, lest we be ostracized, threatened, fired, or even physically assaulted.

  

How did the land of the free and home of the brave come to this? Frankly, we see a couple of significant contributors: Breakdown of the education system and the collapse of family and community.

 

Decades ago, parents could count on the local schools to train students in logic and ensure that they would be historically and culturally literate. No more. Meanwhile, the ongoing collapse of community, family, and faith leaves a large and growing number of Americans feeling lost, lonely, and adrift.

 

These changes, combined with smart phones and social media, have created a perfect environment for propagandists preying upon emotions to drive their agendas that threaten our very way of life.

 

While the times are indeed grave, there is hope. Every day the staff of Intellectual Takeout come to work eager to help restore and improve our great nation. We interact with millions of Americans each week, publishing numerous articles each day and then promoting them through vast social media and e-mail networks. Additionally, we host events, publish a monthly newsletter, provide commentary for traditional media shows, and give speeches to groups of all size.

 

Through it all, we have seen a great thirst for the work we do. As Eleanor W. wrote and told us:

 

“Reading the posts from you all every day is as refreshing as water to a desert traveler.”

 

It’s why we exist: To serve as a refuge for those who want to pursue truth, rediscover the wisdom and traditions of the past, discuss ideas calmly, and apply what’s been learned to their own lives and networks.

 

Now more than ever, Americans need a refuge for rational discourse, a place to peacefully pursue truth. To support Intellectual Takeout with a tax-deductible donation, please click here

 

A Heaven or Hell Decision


Intro to Smith ‘A Heaven or Hell Decision’

Intro by John R. Houk

Author: Justin O. Smith

Posted September 11, 2015

Kim Davis should contemplate changing her political affiliation from a Democrat to a Republican or Independent. Ms. Davis was recently incarcerated for being in contempt to a judicial order to issue same-sex Marriage Certificates to homosexual couples. She refused to violate the conscience of her Biblical faith. Ms. Davis’ Democrat political party’s platform is supportive of various Biblically ungodly stands including the Dem’s homosexual rights stand (1980 and 2012).

Justin Smith addresses the constitutional issues and judicial activism in relation to Kim Davis’ persecution for her Christian convictions. In relation to the Christian faith Justin looks at the majority opinion of Justice Hugo Black (examining Justice Black through the lens of Everson v. Board of Education – looks at consistency more than criticism) in the 1947 decision attached to Everson v. Board of Education. That SCOTUS case made words written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church pertaining the separation of Church and State as part of America’s rule of law over 150 after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The thing is there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the U.S. Constitution including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Justice Hugo Black tossed out constitutional Original Intent in favor of the fallacious concept of a Living Constitution that can be judicially modified to fit any court’s concept of what is a valid right for the present. The Living Constitution concept essentially circumvents the Constitution’s paradigm for alterations to said Constitution. Understand this: The Constitution does not empower the Judicial Branch to create law on any level including the Supreme Court.

The Christian Answers Network takes a brief look at judicial case law that led up Justice Black’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education. If you at that web page you will notice how SCOTUS slowly began to assert Judicial Activism for creating law ex nihilo. Here is a great quote on SCOTUS judicial fiat/law ex nihilo:

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of government, but over time and with the expansion of the power of judicial review it has arguably become the strongest. The problem with this is that justices now routinely substitute their own personal judgment for what is equitable rather than deferring to the Constitution. What has resulted is unelected, unaccountable judges making policy decisions for the country.

Far from the intent of the Founders, this is neither democracy nor representative government; it is five judges imposing their desire for social change on the country by judicial fiat. READ ENTIRETY (The Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Ruling by Judicial Fiat; By Zack Pruitt; Acton InstitutePower Blog; 6/26/15)

The Zack Pruitt quote above was inspired by five Justices forcing same-sex marriage upon the all the States of the Union by fabricating meanings from words in the Constitution that plain and simply DO NOT match the judicial logic of the SCOTUS majority; viz. Obergefell v. Hodges.

It is this Judicial Fiat by five Justices that another Judge in a lower court jailed Kim Davis for her Christian refusal to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexuals.

JRH 9/11/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

A Heaven or Hell Decision

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/10/2015 12:12 PM

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.” – Kim Davis

America was founded on religious freedom and the right to sustain and protect one’s beliefs and conscience, and yet, the American people were recently forced to bear witness to one of the most ignominious and unconscionable acts perpetrated by the third branch of government, the judiciary, in over 150 years, as a U.S. citizen was jailed for staying true to her own Christian belief and her conscience.

With the Ten Commandments still carved in stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kim Davis, a Christian Democrat and Rowan County Clerk (Kentucky), was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on September 3, 2015 for contempt of court. He erroneously asserted that Mrs. Davis “arguably violated the First Amendment by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others,” because she steadfastly has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Keeping in mind that religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment; that marriage is defined in the Kentucky Constitution as being between “one man and one woman”; and that over 75% of voters in Kentucky passed the Kentucky Religious Freedom restoration Act (2013), which provides for accommodations to be made for just such religious objections as Kim Davis holds, one must ask the following question: Aren’t the courts “adopting” their “policy” and agenda when they magically create “law” based on mythical “rights” that cannot be found and are not presented anywhere within the U.S. Constitution?

Instead of deciding an issue with any new law through the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and through logical and full consideration of all available historical evidence, the Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and judge Bunning have perpetuated the same bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of education (1947) and has not yet ended with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). Through their hubris and their ignorance or contempt of the U.S. Constitution, they have advanced a fallacious understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment, which has resulted in judicial tyranny.

Before Everson, the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America. The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

If anyone’s First Amendment rights have been violated, they were Kim Davis’s rights, as she was jailed illegally and denied habeas corpus, in order to coerce her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This violated her right to freedom of religious conscience.

Kim Davis asked the perfect question before she was jailed in Carter County detention Center: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Only Congress can make law according to the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what “law” did the Supreme Court make with its ruling on Obergefell v Hodges? No law has been written and passed that allows same-sex couples to marry, although the Supreme Court and five black-robed tyrants are claiming this is “the law” after Justice Kennedy “found” this imaginary “right” to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment, which dealt with states’ rights, citizenship for freed slaves and ending the Civil war.

During her incarceration, Kim Davis’s lawyer, Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder, worked towards her release, since the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act already provided for accommodations that should have been immediately sought in order to save her from Bunning’s abusive order. Massive crowds of supporters arrived in Grayson, KY to protest her confinement, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came to her aid, and they all stood by her side on the day of her release.

Bunning released Mrs. Davis, because her deputy clerks were signing marriage licenses with “Rowan County,” thus satisfying “the law”; however, Mat Staver’s comments before the crowd seemed to suggest that this fight may not be over until these “marriage” licenses for homosexuals are issued through a different office and someone else’s authority, which the Governor could handle by executive order. Both Staver and Davis reiterated her intent to do her job without violating her Christian beliefs and conscience.

On a larger front, this battle over the definition of “marriage” and against homosexual marriages is far from over, all across the nation. Millions of other Americans, such as Nick Williams – a probate judge in Washington County, Alabama and Molly Criner – a clerk in Irion County, Texas, are declaring that “natural marriage cannot be redefined by government,” and currently, numerous counties across America are following the example set by Kim Davis, including eleven counties from Alabama alone.

Judge Williams told the New York Times: “When you’re elected you don’t check your beliefs at the door. If you’re a true believer, you can’t separate that from who you are.” Judge Williams was evidently well versed, by someone in his youth, on the Founding Fathers’ beliefs.

Even though Kim Davis was released on September 8th, she never should have been arrested it the first place. She broke no Kentucky law. She broke no federal law in her efforts to uphold her Christian convictions. And never again, for all times hereafter, should any American be jailed simply for standing by their religious conscience.

With traditional Christian and Jewish faith and their civilizing principles under increasing attack by black-robed tyrants, who have shown a willingness now to jail people of deeply held religious beliefs, all God-loving Americans must stand in defense of religious liberty and the right to one’s freedom of conscience in the manner envisioned by our Founders, otherwise all Americans will suffer terrible consequences. we must refuse to obey unjust and unConstitutional “laws”, that seek to silence and punish religious speech and diminish the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family to a distant memory, just as prescribed by St. Augustine, rather than allow our society to be reduced to the shambles of a secular and humanist cesspool of sick, demented, twisted criminal and immoral perversion ___ Hell on Earth.

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Religion and the Constitution


One Nation Under God. John McNaughton

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

 

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]

 

 

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

 

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

 

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

 

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

9 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,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

 

The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories


america shining city on hill - gif

The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories

Truth & Theories are not NECESSARILY the Same

 

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2014

 

I received a comment from a person who identified himself as “dougindeap” which if you do the word/space separation is obviously “Doug in Deep”. Or anyway that was my first interpretive inclination. My guess is the person’s name is Doug but euphemistically symbolized “dug” as in digging a hole. So I presumed that “deap” was a euphemism for digging in deep as in being entrenched in a position to stand one’s ground when attacked. However I decided I had better look and see if there is a word “deap” and if so find out its meaning.

 

I soon found via Google there are applications of the word “DEAP” as an acronym. I quickly eliminated the first item on the search – “Urban Dictionary: DEAP”. This first Google item references “DEAP” as the name of a RAP artist from Philadelphia born as Ricardo Leon Jr.

 

The next item on Google I inadvisably skipped over allowing the third Google search item to catch my eye – “DEAP – Definition by AcronymFinder”. This took me to a page that asked the question: “What does DEAP stand for?” Followed by a short list of acronyms for DEAP:

 

All definitions (13)

 

1)     DEAP: Developmental Educational Assistance Program

 

2)     DEAP: Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (Ireland)

 

3)     DEAP: Disability Entitlement Advocacy Program

 

4)     DEAP: Drop Everything and Pray

 

5)     DEAP: Directional Electrostatic Accretion Process

 

6)     DEAP: Dark Matter Experiment using Argon Pulse-shape discrimination

 

7)     DEAP: Diffused Eutectic Aluminum Process

 

8)    DEAP: Descendants of Early American Peoples

 

9)     DEAP: Direct Entry and Advanced Placement

 

10)DEAP: Disaster Emergency Awareness & Preparedness

 

11)DEAP: Dundee Employment and Aftercare Project Ltd (Scotland)

 

12)DEAP: Disability Equipment Assessment Programme

 

13)DEAP: Diplôme d’Etat d’Auxiliaire de Puériculture (French: Qualification for Childcare Assistants)

 

The list numbers are added by me and not AcronymFinder.

 

Just as a reminder I embarked on this quest of looking at acronyms for “DEAP” to see if there is a different meaning than my first impression for commenter “dougindeap”. At this point I have decided the quest is a wild goose chase which I am way too often guilty of participating. Nevertheless, I continue to digress.

 

I did not point out that at the very top of the Google search page was a definition directly given for “DEAP”:

 

Web definitions

 

DEAP is a direct dark matter search experiment using liquid argon as target material. DEAP utilizes background discrimination based on the characteristic scintillation pulse shape in argon. …

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEAP

 

I did not click the Wikipedia link. Although Wikipedia is convenient their content is based on a collective of contributors that may or may not be credible and are typically slanted toward the Left in editorial content. I am not averse to using Wikipedia as a source like most of academia is; however I do like to look at correlative sources to gage the accuracy of a Wikipedia article. Interestingly the Wikipedia excerpt at the top of the page was number 6 on the AcronymFinder list: Dark Matter Experiment using Argon Pulse-shape discrimination.

 

You can look at the other acronyms for DEAP in your own wild goose chase but I am focusing on the dark matter experimenting using argon pulse-shape discrimination:

 

Liquid argon based Dark Matter detection

 

Dark matter makes up about 25% of our universe, yet it has never been detected. The goal of the DEAP experiment is to directly observe and identify this dark matter component of the universe. This will be achieved by observing the elastic scattering of dark matter particles, probably in the form of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), from argon nuclei. Argon in its liquid form is a favorable detection medium for Dark Matter searches because it has a high stopping power against ionizing radiation and good light yield, it allows for any desired detector shape and, due to its low cost, for a large detector mass. A very low background can be reached due to ease of purification and scintillation characteristics which are suitable for achieving very powerful pulse shape discrimination. A prototype detector, DEAP-1, has READ THE REST (DEAP: Liquid argon based Dark Matter detection; DEAP Project Director – Mark Boulay; Department of Physics, Stirling Hall, Queen’s University at Kingston, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; http://deap.phy.queensu.ca/)

 

O yeah, you might as well be speaking Greek or Chinese to me in my comprehension ability here. Nonetheless, this is what I gleaned about DEAP. Physicists believe Dark Matter exists; HOWEVER the primary component that science thrives on – AND is the primary reason there are so many non-believing Western scientists as far as Christianity goes – IS MISSING. Science thrives on OBSERVING in order to MEASURE something that is studied. If something cannot be observed it cannot be measured. If something cannot be measured then its reality is not proven. So if an abundance of data is out there that suggest something should be there to measure the preponderance of science decides to make an educated guess and stipulate it is there. BUT it cannot be observed there; hence the educated guess is a THEORY. Science believes that something is there because data suggests something is there? I think the word that should be on the tip of your tongue is FAITH. Faith is that pesky little belief system that knows there is something there subjectively by deciding to completely KNOW something is there. For Christians we KNOW God exists not because of a measurable/observable feeling in the sense realm but because of an immeasurable inner subjective experience in the spiritual realm.

 

Okay so DEAP was my wild goose chase in making an attempt to understand any hidden meaning in the pseudonym of “dougindeap”. More than likely my first impression was correct in that a person choosing to go by Doug has dug in deep holding to a position believed to be the only answer.

 

Dougindeap made a comment to a blot post I made at the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR) entitled “Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA”. You can tell from my title that I believe Christian Morality is what has made the USA good and as long as America is good then the USA is great. America has been that shining city on a hill that has been a beacon of light shining to the world that when a government is accountable to the people Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is an honorable and a Creator endowed quest for humanity to attain.

 

 

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

 

14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5: 13-16 NKJV)

 

 

I found President Ronald Reagan’s January 1989 Oval Office Farewell Address on video. You should listen to the entire speech. This is a speech about what it is to be an American. At the very end watch the portion about the city on a hill (18 minute 30 second spot):

 

VIDEO: Farewell Speech – President Reagan’s Farewell Speech from the Oval Office 1/11/89

 

 

For America to remain good it is my contention that a Christian America influencing government keeps government from embracing human-centered (humanistic) greed and corruption that sways away the created from the Creator. I believe the Founding Fathers believed this AND contrary to Church/State separationist propaganda even the maligned Deist Founding Fathers believed this. Here’s why.

 

American Deists were very different from European Deists. American Deists were completely dedicated to the Biblical Morality the Christian Creator bestowed upon humanity through Jesus Christ. They believed that without the morality in the Bible to be the crux of community humanity would bend toward evil corruption destroying the rule of law that makes society cohesive. A nation of evil voters means the election of evil morally corrupt leaders. Morally corrupt leaders leads to corrupt government. Corrupt government leads to government-centered power. Government-centered power leads to despotism. Despotism leads to an oppression that robs individuals of a choice on how to achieve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

European Deists – as exampled particularly in the French Revolution – excludes a Divine influence of a moral standard. Rather European Deists believed that whatever humanity defines as the standard of morality is the only compass to follow for life’s decisions and existence. The butchery of the French Revolution that ultimately led to the bloody realization of an absolute ruler in Napoleon Bonaparte bent on European conquest from France in the West to Russia in the East to Britain in the North and even to North Africa in the South to force humanity under a one-man rule to be the paradigm of Secular Humanism.

 

And so Dougindeap follows the Left Wing propaganda (which is even presumed by a number of deluded Conservatives) that the Founding Fathers overtly established the principle of Separation of Church and State in the U.S. Constitution AND that the Judicial Branch correctly asserted this principle in judicial decisions including our present time. I am going to do a rebuttal to Dougindeap’s assertions in a future post. Below are his thoughts. Just one more thing though pertaining to the judiciary. New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788. The U.S. government began operation on March 4, 1789. The Supreme Court of the United States of America did not make today’s interpretation of the First Amendment pertaining Church/State separation the law until 1947 with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black. Dougindeap’s assertion of Judicial consistency in upholding Separation of Church and State as in keeping the Christian faith out of anything to do with taxpayer money simply is not supported by the facts.

 

JRH 3/13/14

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

******************************

Comment to: Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA

 

By dougindeap

Comment Posted: February 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Blog Posted at: NCCR

 

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

 

That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

 

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

 

Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).

 

Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

 

While some also draw meaning from the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.

______________________________________

The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2014

_____________________________________

Comment to: Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA

 

Pseudonym: Dougindeap

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA


America's Christian Foundation

John R. Houk

© February 11, 2014

 

Not long ago President Barack Hussein Obama delivered the State of the Union Address (1/28/14) before Congress and the American television viewers who decided to tune in. I personally am disgusted with the President’s overbearing roughshod approach of shoving his Leftist transformationism down the throat of America. In other words – I chose not to watch it. Instead I listened to, watched and read the reviews of Conservatives that have a greater regard for Original Intent constitutionalism.

 

With all this in mind I came across an essay from a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that in essence could be themed the State of America’s Existence through the filter of history and our Christian heritage. Pastor Rick Joyner of MorningStar Fellowship Church (and Ministries) is one of those rare ordained Christian leaders that chooses to exercise both his First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom and the Right of Free Speech. Contrary to Supreme Court, the IRS as well as Separation of Church/State enthusiasts Christians and Christian Leaders SHOULD take steps to be an influence on the operation of government. The concept of “Separation of Church/State is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution but rather is a derivative political doctrine twisted from a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist of Church of Connecticut that was concerned that its parishioners would have to pay tax support for a State Established Church which were STILL in effect on the State level in the novice Federal Union of the United States of America, but were prohibited on a Federal level Constitutionally for the U.S. government. Evidently uncharacteristically Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion that emphasized the bizarre interpretation of the Jefferson-to-Danbury Baptist Church Letter to forbid anything to do with government money to have anything to do with religion – focus on Christianity. This warping of an issue NOT FOUND in the U.S. Constitution occurred in the year 1947. This is 159 years after the Ninth State (New Hampshire) ratified the Constitution creating the United States of America’s present form of government.

 

Pastor Joyner is not complying with the Leftist edict to keep the Church out of the State. His observations are worth reading.

 

JRH 2/11/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Restoring The Republic

MorningStar Prophetic Bulletin #83

 

By Rick Joyner

February 6, 2014

MorningStar

 

America is not the kingdom of God, and it is definitely not the New Jerusalem. Even so, many nations have been called by God for special purposes. After years of studying American history and the founding of our Republic, His hand in our founding became clear to me. America has a purpose in preparing the way for His coming kingdom.

      

The kingdom of God will not be a democracy, but a kingdom. It will be built on many of the freedoms that are foundational to America’s strength and accomplishments. People were created to be free, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The coming kingdom will be the world’s Jubilee. Like the biblical year of Jubilee in which all debts will be cancelled and all inheritances restored, this will happen for all mankind.

       

In Isaiah 40 we see that we prepare the way for the Lord by building a highway. America is part of that highway. While other nations have a part in this too, my primary calling is to my own nation. With the crisis America is in now, I am focusing on its part although the same principles can apply to others. Though America has had many great crises that have threatened our existence, they have all resulted in a great advance toward our ultimate purpose. The present crises can do the same. As we are engaged in building our part of this highway, the favor and blessings of God have been upon us, and it is His way to save the best for last. We must not give up on our country now. We can be sure that God has not.

 

Crises = Opportunity

         

For many years we have been saying that each year would be more challenging than the last. I don’t think we have been wrong yet. What can we expect for 2014? It will be even more challenging too, but that does not mean it will not be a great year. Keeping in mind that victories don’t come without battles, and no great victories without great battles, this is the year we can expect some breakthroughs and a turning. Now is the time to see these crises/opportunities and prepare for them.

        

 2013 gave us shocking revelations, unprecedented in American history, of the government’s use of the IRS to intimidate and control political opposition, domestic spying by the NSA, and the building of an apparatus that could be used for totalitarian control even beyond the imagination of the authors of 1984 and Animal Farm. The year ended with ObamaCare collapsing, the Administration reeling, stock markets soaring, and the politically incorrect Duck Dynasty rising in popularity far past the President or any other politician. We can learn much from these signs.

         

Not everyone who stood up for Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty agreed with him. However, there was a rising agreement that he had the right to say what he thinks without being penalized. Repulsion to political correctness is on the rise as well as a refreshing embracing of anyone with clear speech and the courage to say what they actually think. This is certainly a good sign.

         

The revelations of our government’s domestic spying apparatus should have caused the greatest outrage of Americans. The relative passivity of Americans about this is troubling. However, there are also signs that people are waking up to this threat as well.

         

As the saying goes, “If you do not change your direction, you will end up where you are headed.” Therefore, we will look at these and other major revelations that are illuminating ultimate issues with serious consequences. We will do this using a slightly modified version of The Three Great Questions:

 

Where are we headed?

 

Where should we be headed?

 

What can we do about it?

 

Where Are We Headed?

         

First we need to understand that where our government is headed may not be where the people are headed or want their government headed. There is a growing disconnect between the will of the people and the Federal Government.    

         

We must also understand that you can be a liberal and not be a socialist. You can be a socialist and not be a Marxist. One of the most destructive deceptions at this time is to judge others, especially other people groups, by their most extreme elements. That being said, America’s turn to the left has gone past classical liberalism toward socialism, with momentum towards Marxism.

         

The Federal Government has been steering us in this direction, although the general population of America remains steadfastly on the conservative side of moderate. A recent study revealed that those who identified themselves as liberal actually increased by 10%. However, that was from 17% to 27% with more than twice that percentage identifying themselves as conservatives. America remains a basically moderate nation, slightly leaning toward the conservative side.

 

Democracy is Being Destroyed

         

Even though America still leans slightly to the conservative side of moderate, that may never again be reflected in voting without election laws that protect the validity and sanctity of the vote. Consider these facts:

        

 In every swing state where voter I.D. was required, Romney won in 2012. In the major swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania where no voter I.D. was required, dozens of precincts had 100% of the vote go to Obama. Some precincts counted more votes (all for Obama) than there were registered voters in the precincts. This is simply not possible. As even the Democratic Party pollster Patrick Caddell stated, “This election was within the margin of fraud.” 

 

Where Should We Be Headed?

         

The American Republic must be restored. The Constitution must be restored as the supreme law of the land.

 

What Can We Do About It?

         

There must be a general education about the Constitution and a resolute insistence that those who hold public office in any form keep their vow to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic. Restoring the integrity of the vote is fundamental to the true will of the people ever being done in America again. How can we require an I.D. for buying a pack of cigarettes and not require one to vote?

         

Overwhelming evidence shows that the 2012 election was not a legitimate election. Increasing doubt will be cast on every election from now on if basic voter I.D. laws are not implemented with all voter fraud being considered a serious felony with serious penalties, and serious enforcement.

         

Voting is the foundation of democracy. To the degree that this most basic of all rights, upon which all of our other rights depend, is so abused, we no longer have true democracy in America. We should challenge the legitimacy of any election where voter I.D. is not required and enforced. Even the U.N. observers declared that it is not possible to have a legitimate election without voter I.D.

         

Those who promote voter fraud by being against voter I.D. should be considered the enemies of our Constitution and of democracy that they are. If there is to be freedom, then the most basic right of every American—to have their vote count—must be restored. Our votes do not count if we continue to allow the level of fraud now common in our elections.

         

The Secretary of State of each state is the one who authenticates elections. It was reported that the Administration invested far more heavily in this office than the Republicans, and in some states, more than they did in the governorship. Why? Obviously, this is a position where the utmost integrity is required to preserve integrity in elections. Without giving this position the importance it deserves, major voter fraud will continue.

        

 Laws should be passed and enforced that any government official who compromises the integrity of any election is guilty of treason—because they are. Voter fraud is the most basic attack against the American Republic and the Constitution.

 

Truth is Built on People of Truth

          

We can have the best form of government and still have bad government, if we have people without integrity running it. We cannot expect those who would gain their position falsely to govern fairly, honestly, or without corruption. We will not rid our government of growing corruption without restoring the integrity of the vote.

          

In a democracy, the people are the sovereign and the government works for the people. With the erosion of our Constitutional moorings, the government has been increasingly brazen to force its will on the people. The Revolutionary War was fought to throw off this tyranny, and it is this tyranny that our Founders encouraged citizens to rise up and throw off again anytime it manifests in our government.

         

In fact, that was the reason for the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms was not for hunting or recreational target practice, it was specifically for the purpose of keeping citizens armed and able to overthrow any tyrant or tyranny that sought to impose itself on the people through the government.

 

Another Revolution/Civil War?

       

Some think another revolution or civil war could never happen in America because a majority of Americans would never allow it. It would not require a majority, or even close to a majority, for this to happen. Marx was right when he declared that a tiny percentage of the passionate would rule the majority who are indifferent. This was proven when just twenty thousand Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and took over Russia, a nation of millions and one of the strongest countries in the world at the time.

       

 During the American Revolutionary War, roughly 30% of colonists were in favor of the Revolution, and only a small percentage of those actually participated in the conflict. Another 30% were loyal to the king and steadfastly opposed to revolution. The remaining 40% of the people tended to drift from one side to the other depending on who it looked like was winning, or they turned against one side because of the atrocities they were committing.

      

 The revolutionaries during the American Revolution were liberals. The conservatives were loyalists to the British crown. The definition of liberal and conservative has changed since then but, after over 250 years, we continue to have the same general political breakdown: 30% liberal, 30% conservative, and 40% in-between. The American Civil War had a similar breakdown, and the acrimony is growing as it did before both of these two most terrible conflicts.

 

It Is Still About Slavery

      

Signs are strong that if we are not soon drawn back together as a nation, we will be torn apart. The basic issue dividing us continues to be slavery. This is not about a single people group being enslaved, but whether we will all become slaves of the state or remain a free people.

      

Many have attempted to give the impression that slavery in America was less cruel and diabolical than it really was. Some slave owners may have been relatively humane in their treatment of slaves, but the key word here is “relatively.” Slavery itself was inhumane and diabolical, and the American form was as bad, or worse, than what was found anywhere in history. The point is not to stir up old wounds, but to make a connection to the totalitarian slavery America is headed for if we do not change our direction. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had the technology for the kind of totalitarian control apparatus that is now in the hands of the U.S. Government. In the hands of the wrong people, whether from the right or the left, the kind of totalitarian control that could be imposed on America would be worse than has ever been known before.

      

The revelations of 2013 regarding the use of the IRS to suppress political opposition is the worst abuse of power since the Civil War, and to date, there have been almost no political repercussions for it. Recent news reports say that the IRS is planning on handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to “increase the morale of the agency.” Well I guess millions of dollars could help just about anyone’s morale! Certainly not everyone in the IRS should be implicated in the suppression of conservative groups. Many IRS agents and employees are faithful public servants. Even so, this could hardly be a more “in your face” insult to the victims of IRS abuse and a clear revelation of just how callous the IRS remains.

       

Then we have the revealing of domestic spying by the NSA: the U.S. Federal Government not only developed the most sophisticated and comprehensive totalitarian control apparatus in history, but they are already using it against U.S. citizens.

       

With the revelation of this apparatus, we cannot help but wonder if this is the reason why blatant violations of our Constitution by our Federal Government surface continually, yet only a few of our elected representatives, who vowed by solemn oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, have the courage to protest it, much less seek the impeachment and maybe even the arrest of those responsible.

      

The Supreme Court found the Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional on the basis of a decisive vote by Chief Justice Roberts, that it was in fact a tax which no one could understand, and which Roberts could not even explain. How could we not believe that someone had gotten to him? Was he threatened with the revelation of something about himself or a family member that is now being used to control him? Nothing else seems to make sense of Judge Roberts’ decision.

     

This will now be a cloud that hangs over all government officials—they are being controlled to keep them from speaking out or possibly voting as they would like, because something is being used to silence them. Just the threat that NSA information is being used in this way greatly erodes the trust of citizens in their government.

 

The Power Grab

     

The Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA or ObamaCare) is the single biggest power grab in American history, and if fully implemented, could result in the worst tyranny ever. Just as rat poison is 98% food and only 2% poison, ObamaCare is filled with elements intended to appeal to almost everyone, but a most deadly poison is sown throughout it. Senator Rand Paul warned this in his letter released February 4:

 

President Obama’s NSA was caught spying, collecting, and storing data on virtually every American citizen.

 

And some are now saying the “ObamaCare” database may end up being even worse.

 

But I’m afraid the worst spying and data collection scheme of them all could turn out to be the massive National ID database buried deep within the so-called “Immigration Reform Bill.”

      

Do you remember early in President Obama’s first term when he implemented the “Cash for Clunkers” program? The auto dealers logged onto the government site to take advantage of this and found that they had to agree that their computers and all of their contents became government property upon signing up. This requirement created such an immediate outcry that the Administration quickly backed off. However, they have not stopped using every means to seize private information on American citizens. A pattern persists in this Administration that you would have to be intentionally blind not to see.

      

ObamaCare is not likely to ever be fully implemented. If we were shocked by the mismanagement of the website, the actual implementation of this law would be beyond even that. We can expect the outrage to continue to grow as millions lose the health coverage that President Obama promised they could keep. Outrage will grow as all others end up paying many times more than they were paying only to receive even less coverage, while the quality of our healthcare system continues to erode under the present mismanagement. We will not just be losing our freedom and our money, but many lives will be lost as this impossible red tape machine gets loosed upon America. Even if the ACA gets tabled soon, it has already infected the country with enough poison to be devastating.

 

America’s Lifeblood

            

America’s strength was built on the freedom that released human initiative. This was summed up as the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Elements in the ACA attack all three of these basic freedoms at their roots. Just the threat of the ACA has dragged our economy to a virtual halt, costing millions of jobs, and will cause millions more to be laid off or dropped to part-time status.

           

Those who promoted the ACA, and forced it upon America against her will, may not have intended to destroy our economy. Even so, the madness of this worst-ever devised legislation will accomplish this by mismanagement. If the government cannot design and run a website, how can it run the entire healthcare industry? This has now gone beyond Einstein’s definition of insanity—we actually need another word for the madness we are being subjected to by our government.

         

If healthcare really was the Administration’s purpose with the ACA and not the control of the people, why was the IRS assigned to police it? The intent and ability of the IRS to suppress dissent has now been clearly exposed. Through the ACA, the government will have access to all of our financial records, as well as the authority to withdraw from our accounts at will. Then, as was illuminated a few weeks ago, we now know that buried within this law the government is given authority to seize the assets of estates to pay the medical costs of the deceased. Wasn’t the insurance supposed to do that? With the implementation of the ACA, Americans can kiss inheritances goodbye.

         

We no longer have a government that is of the people, for the people, or by the people. Totalitarian control is reaching its tentacles deeper into our lives each passing day. Will we change our course, or will we end up where we are headed?

         

We will change our direction. We will have a Jubilee. Our inheritance will not be stolen, but restored.

____________________________

Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA

John R. Houk

© February 11, 2014

__________________________

Restoring The Republic

 

© 2011 MorningStar Ministries

 

[Editor: It looks like MorningStar tech guys have to update copyright]

Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America


Rick Joyner 2

John R. Houk

© December 11, 2013

 

Rick Joyner is a Minister of the Gospel who leans toward the Charismatic and Prophetic strains of Protestant Christianity. Joyner is either heralded for his insights or disdained as a heretic for his point of the Holy Bible. Here is a simple biography from the website that is part of MorningStar Ministries:

 

Rick Joyner is Founder and Executive Director of MorningStar Ministries and Heritage International Ministries and is the Senior Pastor at MorningStar Fellowship Church. Rick is President of The Oak Initiative, an interdenominational movement that mobilizes Christians to engage in the great issues of our time. He has authored more than forty books, including The Final Quest Trilogy, There Were Two Trees in the Garden, and A New America. Rick and his wife, Julie, have five children: Anna Jane, Aaryn, Amber, Ben, and Sam. ([Top of] Rick Joyner [Archive Page]; MorningStar)

 

Joseph R. Chambers is a Christian detractor of Rick Jordan’s prophetic (often in the sense of metaphorical insight) teachings. He calls those teachings “False Teachings”. Chambers is a Doctor of Divinity meaning he has credentials as an academic theologian. Credentials are a big thing for Mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Just for clarity I am not criticizing Mainstream academic theology in absolute terms. Rather I believe academic theologians place more stock in the aggregated opinions of past theologians of which even today’s theologians may concur or not concur in part or in toto. Here is an excerpt from a Chambers essay criticizing Joyner:

 

The first time I picked up material written by Rick Joyner I immediately sensed the spirit of darkness and deception.  Reading his material is similar to reading New Age materials.  His approach is to take anything in Scripture and make it mean anything that suits his theological aims.  There is no faithfulness to established facts of interpretation.  It’s a smorgasbord of ideas loosely connected with the generous use of out-of-text Scripture to prove his point.  Look at his basic premise for the book, There Were Two Trees In The Garden.  His identification of the forbidden tree lays a false foundation for the entire book.
    

“The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a powerful Biblical model of the Law.  As the Apostle Paul declared “The power of sin is the law” (I Corinthians 15:56).  This is because it is through the Law that we must derive our knowledge of good and evil.  We may wonder how this knowledge brings death until we see the fruit.  The knowledge of good and evil kills us by distracting us from the One who is the source of life; the Tree of Life – Jesus. The Tree of Knowledge causes us to focus our attention upon ourselves.  Sin is empowered by the law; not just because the evil is revealed but the good as well. It drives us either to corruption or self-righteousness, both of which lead to death.” (There Were Two Trees In The Garden, Rick Joyner, pp. 9-10.)
    

To suggest that this forbidden tree was the Laws of God as given to Moses or any other Bible writer is blasphemous.  The “Ten Commandments” are the foundational truths and principles of all of God’s revelation.  This attack on “God’s Laws” shows the direction of major deception in religious circles.  Satan cannot present himself as God or present his Antichrist as the “Christ” without first separating Divine revelation or the Holy Truth from experiences in the religious realm. (The False Teachings of Rick Joyner; By Joseph R. Chambers; Apologetics Coordination Team; 1999)

 

Chambers seems that a paragraph from Joyner’s book validates the assumption that Joyner takes Scripture and twists it to anything chosen to mean for the moment. Then indicates (as is typical of academics) claims that Joyner takes Scripture out of context when in reality Joyner is simply using a metaphorical parallel of what would be occurring when Moses received the Law from God Almighty. Chambers suggests that Joyner is saying specifically that the Tree of knowledge of good and evil is equivalent of the Law and that the Tree of Life is Jesus. If you read the paragraph used to vilify Joyner, Joyner says no such thing. Rather Joyner uses metaphorical symbolism to indicate that the Tree of knowledge of good and Evil as well as the Tree of Life were models of future Biblical realities that would embodied in Moses and later through the human birth of the Savior and Deliverer Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

Ok, you got me. I am a proponent of Rick Joyner. I do not necessarily side with Joyner hook, line and sinker. I believe every Believer must read and meditate on the Bible to understand what the Holy Spirit has for your journey and that people like Joyner and/or even Mainstream theologians should be used as a framework rather than an absolute acquiescence to their interpretations of Scripture. If you miss the understanding of the Holy Spirit be humble enough to be corrected but not sheepish enough to fail to verify the validity of someone else’s correction.

 

Christianbook.com provides a profile of Rick Joyner that is more even handed than Joseph R. Chambers. The profile lays out how Joyner has helped many and lays out the reasons why he has critics leaving it up to the reader to decide for their self if Joyner is a false teach, a prophet or a person that is sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect. The profile is entitled as Meet Rick Joyner and can be read HERE.

 

Now I had to go over these thoughts on Rick Joyner because I am going to cross post his Word for the Week which brought to us as The Great Commission, Part 50: Time to Rebuild Firewalls. I received the email notification on December 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM. I mention the date because the spiritual essay when you click ‘Read More’ does not seem to have a date on it. I am kind of peculiar about that sort of thing. Indeed the title is a bit different when you follow the link.

 

My attention was lifted to the essay it because it tackles an issue more in Christian leadership would tackle but fail to because of a misunderstanding of the Establish Clause in the First Amendment. Too often Christian leaders and Ministries limit themselves pertaining to politics because they have been brainwashed that somewhere in the First Amendment it says that Government and the Church must be absolutely separated from each other not having an influence. The reality is there is no wording whatsoever anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it is stipulated there is a Separation of Church and State. What the First Amendment does say pertaining to religion is this:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; … (First Amendment; U.S. Constitution; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University)

 

The clause simply states that Congress cannot establish a State Religion (meaning Church in those days) and that Congress prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Founding Fathers intended for Christianity to be an influence on the rule of law and culture, BUT that Congress cannot make any Christian Denomination a tax supported instrument of the U.S. Government. But I guess that is another post.

 

Joyner tackles an interesting interpretation on Marxism, Capitalism, the Founding Fathers’ original intent for Constitutional Government and how that original intent has been whittled away and unless reversed will lead to the demise of the United States as we know it.

 

Interesting alternative reading:

 

Rick Joyner Predicts Destruction of Republic, Third Great Awakening

 

JRH 12/11/13

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50

 

By Rick Joyner

December 10, 2013

Rick Joyner’s Word of the Week

 

The American Founding Fathers believed that tyranny could come from either the government or from the people. Because of this, they built a brilliant system of government that had firewalls to protect against the tyranny from either direction. They warned that if these firewalls were torn down, the Republic could not last. In the last century, we tore both firewalls down, and the system has been crumbling since. The American Republic will not last much longer if we do not implement some very radical action to turn from the direction in which we’re headed and rebuild the firewalls.  

        

In some basic ways both Russia and China now have more liberty than we have in America. They are trending toward more individual liberty, even if they are hitting bumps on the road to this and occasionally may even run into a ditch. Even so, they get going again and are trending in the direction toward personal liberty. As impatient as many have been with their slowness in this, we should remember how long we struggled. Even after nearly a century of American democracy, we still had slavery, and America invented the concentration camps that we used for displacing and even killing Native Americans. The march of civilization has not been smooth or consistent anywhere or with anyone. So let us too give grace to those who are struggling.

        

However, after accomplishing so much, Western nations are now trending toward tyranny and the loss of individual freedom. There have been occasional slowdowns in this march to bondage, but then the pace gets even faster. The East and West are going in opposite directions again.

       

Thankfully, there is a third column. It is the kingdom of God. Every good gift that has come down to man, including better governments, has come from above. Even so, no government on earth is the kingdom of God even if they have some of the elements of the kingdom. The kingdom is yet to come to the earth, but it surely will. Many governments on the earth that have been built on at least some kingdom principles will “become the kingdom of our Lord.”

         

One of the things the Lord said that He would do after His return is to separate the nations as “sheep” or “goats.” He explained the qualifications for being a sheep or goat nation. For those who are here to help prepare the way for the Lord, one way that we do this is by helping our nation become a sheep nation. One of the ways that we are called to help prepare the way for the Lord is to help our nations adopt kingdom principles that would help them become “sheep” nations rather than “goat” nations. To help a nation get to where it is supposed to go, we must first know where it is.

         

There are other major forces in the world than Marxism and capitalism, but these have been the two most powerful counterweights in recent times. Under each of these there are nuances. For example, free enterprise is different than capitalism, but can only exist under capitalism. With pure capitalism you must have capital to have opportunity, but with free enterprise you only need initiative to have opportunity. However, if you have free enterprise and you become successful, you will have capital that you will want to invest, so you become a capitalist. The more capitalists and the more capital there is to invest, the more people have been successful in the system.

         

You must have capitalism to have free enterprise. But if capitalism grows unchecked, it can choke out free enterprise and destroy itself by cutting itself off from its lifeblood. Left to itself without any steering and the needed corrections from government, greed can take over capitalism in such a way that it starts to abuse and hurt people. This leads to revolution and is not in anyone’s interest to allow this to happen—except the Marxists. The lifeblood of Marxism is promoting the envy of the successful, which they call “social justice.”

        

Not all who call for social justice are Marxists, and there is a devotion to social justice that we must have to remain a Republic. Even so, Marx, and subsequent Marxists, have been brilliant in the way they have seized popular and even noble terms to mobilize and exploit those whom Marx called the “useful idiots.” The “useful idiots” were the idealists that Marx saw as being so easily manipulated, but which he also despised. They were always the first to feel the wrath when Marxists gained control.

       

That being said, The Bible is still the biggest proponent of true social justice, and requires justice for all with a special devotion to providing justice for those who are weak. It requires freedom for the oppressed, and then it requires generosity from the prosperous to the poor. However, the key distinction between Christianity and the Marxist social justice, or the liberal social justice promoted by many today, is that nowhere does The Bible demand charity from the government, but from individuals.

      

When charity becomes institutional it loses its basic power to uplift. It becomes demeaning, dehumanizing, and always leads to bondage. We will develop this further next week.

______________________________

Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America

John R. Houk

© December 11, 2013

____________________________

Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50

 

© 2011 MorningStar Ministries

 

Donate to MorningStar Ministries

Find the Church of the St. Bernard


Two Saint Bernard dogs sit in the snow on the Great St. Bernard Pass after returning from their winter quarters in Martigny, Switzerland, Thursday, June 4, 2009. The dogs will spend the summer on the pass and return to Martigny towards the end of the year. (AP Photo/KEYSTONE/Jean-Christophe Bott)

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2013

 

We all know or should know that the Obama Administration is spying on ALL Americans AND has singled Conservatives via Obama’s reach through the IRS to harass their Free Speech by either disenfranchising their cause organizations or to create crimes that are not there for the Justice Department to intimidate Conservative individuals.

 

I just read a post from Bill Warner of Political Islam in which he accuses the Christian Church in America of becoming weak on moral principles. Warner makes a leap by connecting this moral weakness to the power of the IRS to threaten Churches’ 501c3 status. Most Churches in America connect their 501c3 status to their financial viability to operate. According to rules set up by Congress under the misguided concept of Separation of Church and State the IRS is empowered to crack down on any charity, philanthropic venture, religion – LIKE a Christian Church, nonprofit organization that has the purpose of providing an educational agenda – LIKE a Conservative Tea Party, an educate on Islam organization (e.g. showing how Islam is contradictory to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights) and/or even a Left Wing organization dedicated to correcting racist thought patterns, spreading multiculturalism, upholding Marxist principles that Leftists moronically believe will lead to a better society-culture and so forth whatever you can think of AS LONG AS the 501c3 status has nothing to do with a political agenda affecting Federal, State and Local government. Amazingly Left Wing 501c3 organizations that openly support political candidates seem to get a pass.

 

The thing is – who determines the line between educational and politics that effects the operation of government? Incidentally the operation of government in connection to 501c3 status typically means throwing support behind a political candidate for legislative or executive office on a Federal, State or Local level. That determination is broad and usually more stringent toward Churches during a Dem Party Presidential Administration. Unfortunately it occurs during a GOP Presidential Administration when Leftists complain to their Dem Party Senator or Congressman or they find a Left Wing bureaucrat in the IRS. Again unfortunately there are many Left Wing bureaucrats entrenched at all levels of government that are nearly impossible to fire under Civil Service rules.

 

Frankly these 501c3 political guidelines are a bunch of malarkey because they impose Free Speech restrictions and Religious Freedom restrictions in the name of a principle NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court began adding rule of law to the First Amendment on Church/State Separation in the early 1900s. In 1947 in a SLIM decision of 5-4 Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion that SCOTUS has been following ever since. Black’s Opinion:

 

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. (Bold Emphasis Added)

 

I don’t have a law degree but I know how to read. Jefferson had little to do with writing the Constitution or the Bill of Rights directly. Jefferson’s famous phrasing was in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut that was concerned of that State’s pre-Constitution days of a State Established Church in which the Baptists were excluded but still had to pay taxes to the State Church. Jefferson was merely emphasizing that the First Amendment forbids the Federal government from establishing a State Church which would be tax supported. The Wall of Separation meant that Christian Denominations no longer had to worry about paying taxes to support a State Church because Congress is forbidden to establish a Church Denomination that is tax supported.

 

Read this well written introduction to the actual letter Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church:

 

The Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Thomas Jefferson on October 7, 1801, to complain about the infringement of their religious liberty by their state legislature: “what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.” The Baptists, of course, acknowledged that “the president of the United States is not the national legislator,” but expressed the wish that his views on religious liberty would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world.”

 

In his brief response, President Jefferson sympathized with the Connecticut Baptists in their opposition to the state’s established religion, while expressing his reverence for the First Amendment’s “wall of separation between Church & State” at the federal level. Jefferson was not advancing the modern view that religion must be excluded from the public square. After all, he concludes his letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a brief prayer.

 

The now well-known expression lay dormant for nearly a century and a half until Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, put forth the novel interpretation that the First Amendment’s establishment clause applied to the states and that any government support or preference for religion amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In support of his argument for a radical separation of religion and politics, he cited Jefferson’s metaphor: “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

 

Jefferson’s actual aim was quite to the contrary. While he, along with James Madison, stoutly opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other states (while recognizing that, as President, he had to respect them), he was deeply committed to religious liberty. Jefferson’s letter must also be read in context of his declaration in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: “Almighty God hath created the mind free….” The “wall of separation” exists to affirm natural rights, including those of faith and religious worship. The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all. (Bold Emphasis Added; Heritage Foundation – You can read Jefferson’s actual letter after the introduction)

 

The four Justices that disagreed with the majority opinion penned by Hugo Black were Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, Rutledge and Burton. Everson v Board of Education was about reimbursing parents of Catholic students on the taxpayer dime for transportation to Catholic Schools but not to private schools. For clarity the dissenting Justices agreed with Justice Black’s “…the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State”. The dissenting Justices were upset that the Majority Opinion viewed taxpayer money for transporting students to Catholic Schools was a public service and not a government affirmation of a religious institution. So if the Majority Opinion viewed using tax money as reimbursement was government support of a religious entity and thus overruled Ewing Township transporting Catholic kids just as Public School kids. The Supreme Court ruling would have been 9-0 and Black’s Jefferson quote would still loom at the end of the opinion and the Supreme Court would have still nullified the Original Intent of the wording of the First Amendment in the Establishment Clause which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The words simply forbid Congress to establish a national Church. The following words which “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” would indicate no government meddling in religion but the Religious Freedom to provide a moral influence on government and society at large.

 

Thanks to the 1947 SCOTUS ex nihilo expanded meaning to words in the First Amendment from words outside of the First Amendment, Leftist Secular Humanists have continuously used the Courts to water down Christian Morality in American Society. ONLY Congress could make the Constitutional call SCOTUS 1947 performed. AND Congress would be limited to specifically using the Amendment process to add words such as “a wall of separation between Church and State”. Constitutionally the Supreme Court only can say legislation is constitutional or unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution places legislation – whether it be by the Bill or initiating a Constitutional Amendment – under the purview of Congress.

 

The majority of Christians have failed to stand up and battle Leftists from bleeding Christianity and Biblical Morality out of the United States of America. In this manner Bill Warner is correct. In Christian America Christians attend the Church of the Poodle. American Christians might want to begin looking for the brave and saving Church of the St. Bernard.

 

JRH 6/21/13

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

The Church of the Poodle

 

By Bill Warner

June 17, 2013

Political Islam

 

It appears that the Obama administration is spying on churches and using the IRS to punish churches about their 501c3 tax exempt status (H/T AtlasShrugs). According to the article, the Obama administration has a program of snooping on the activity in and by churches. The collected church intelligence deals with members who are with Tea Party or who speak publically about guns. (Remember: “cling to their guns and Bibles”.) Some ministers believe that agents may have joined churches to spy.

As bizarre as this may seem, it dovetails with other known Obama administration views. Homeland Security has a profile (yes, all law enforcement uses profiling) of the pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Constitution and pro-Bible white Christian as being a potential terrorist.

We do know that the IRS has targeted conservatives, pro-Israel, pro-life, Tea Party and even Billy Graham. When the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association backed the North Carolina ballot initiative about gay marriage, it was notified by the IRS that its tax exempt status was going to be revoked. In the end it was not revoked, but the threat cost money, time and hassle.

All of this has the desired effect of chilling free speech in the churches.

Here is the point: there is no outcry from the churches! This lack of outrage is a measure of the health of Christianity in America-so weak that it cannot even protest the abuse. But, we already knew how morally weak the church is in its response to rape, theft, enslavement and murder of Christians throughout the Islamic world. Christians are the most persecuted demographic group in the world. Over 100,000 thousand Christians died last year, and the response of the churches is to smile and hold a dialog with Muslims who are brothers with the jihadist persecutors. Dhimmi ministers speak of loving their Muslim neighbors, but show no concern for dead Christians. The day of a minister having a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other is over. The new gospel is: What, me worry?

Why does the moral and spiritual decay of the church matter to a counter-jihadist? This is a civilizational war and our spiritual flank is unprotected. Instead of the church being a guard dog, it is a poodle. Ministers cannot even protect their own flocks, much less the nation. Back in the past the church was the foundation of the nation and a guardian of our society. But now the church won’t even bark at an enemy-foreign or domestic. All the church wants is a scratch behind the ears by the intruder. (In fairness, only 95% of the churches are being condemned here.) To be complete, the synagogues are a swamp of ignorance and cowardliness, as well.

So, to the counter-jihadist the church is at best a dead weight of massive ignorance and is frequently found in bridge-building dialogues with the enemy-Islam.

_____________________

Find the Church of the St. Bernard

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2013

____________________

The Church of the Poodle

 

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink:
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-church-of-the-poodle/

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

© 2007-2013 Political Islam
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.

Criticizing the Current Interpretation of Disestablishment Clause


Fisher Ames Framer 1st Amendment

Fisher Ames

 

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2012

 

On my AC2C blog I posted this title: “Keep Govt. OUT of Church – NOT Church out Govt.” The main focus of the post was a Youtube video of excerpts of President Ronald Reagan speeches with a definite portrayal of Christianity on the U.S. government.

 

I wrote this as a little introduction to the Ronald Reagan excerpts:

 

The disestablishment clause of the First Amendment is a one-way action as far as Separation of Church and State is concerned. That one-way is that government must be separate and out of the religion business AND NOT that the Church be separate from the government.

 

Here are the limited comments on my AC2C blog pertaining to my introduction to the Reagan video:

 

Comment by CJ on Wednesday:

 

If they want to keep their tax exemptions they can’t preach it at the pulpit.  So, what? … they [can] go out in the political world. the church can interfere, influence government but government can’t interfere with the church…???????

 

I do believe the Founders wanted “religion” out of politics and politics out of ‘religion”.

 

Let’s just agree to disagree John.

 

Comment by John on Wednesday

 

I respectfully disagree CJ. The Church in various denominations can and should be an influence on government and the government should never interfere with the Church in its various denominations. Both sides of that coin can work and did in America until the 1960s.

 

Comment by CJ on Monday

 

[N]ot sure about this….can’t have it both ways…if you want government out of the church then let the church stay out of the government….

 

Now just for clarity’s sake I am not criticizing CJ. We are friends on AC2C. Indeed, at AC2C CJ is a big fish and I am just a little mackerel. I am thrilled when CJ reads my posts and comments on them. We are both Conservatives. You should also know Conservatives do not agree on all issues. On the Church/State issue I am all about the government needs to mind its business relating to the Church and the Church needs to be a moral foundation for the rule of law in America and thus the U.S. government.

 

As the moral foundation, I am not advocating that Christianity itself be the law of the land. I am advocating that Christian morality and principles be the measuring stick for the rule of law in Congress enacting laws and the Executive Branch enforcing those laws or appending rules in conjunction to Congressional enacted laws to define enforcement. Neither the President nor the Judiciary Branch should enact laws according to the U.S. Constitution that are outside the scope of duly enacted Constitutional Congressional laws. The Executive enforces or manages the rule of law and the Judicial Branch merely interprets the enacted law or the enforcement of an enacted law according to the U.S. Constitution and the duly State ratified Amendments.

 

As far as the Church, the State and the Constitution are related I like this statement on a Jeremiah Project article:

 

While the concept of separation of church and state might be implied by the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, it says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” And, even if you accept the principle of the separation of church and state being implied by the First Amendment, it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

In their desire to promote their secular humanist philosophy using the power of government, many liberals today want to alter America’s Christian heritage and replace it with the 10 Planks of Communism. They want to remove religion from our history and replace it with the Soviet doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They don’t want to safeguard denominational neutrality by the state as the Founders intended, rather they want to eradicate every vestige of religion from our public institutions. (The bold emphasis is mine. America’s Godly Heritage; Jeremiah Project)

 

For me the First Amendment in its Original Intent means that which I placed in bold print above: “it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

 

This is what I meant by Church and State separation is a one-way street. This is why I disagree with CJ. In CJ’s reasoning there is no two-ways about it; i.e. if government cannot be involved Church then Church cannot be involved in government. There is one I can agree with CJ’s reasoning. That agreement is the Church cannot be a Branch of the government say like Islam is a part of the Iranian government making Iran a theocracy. In this line of thinking CJ is absolutely correct in keeping religion/Church separate from government.

 

The USA is a democratically representative Republic by the people and for the people. There is nothing theocratic about America. In promoting Christian principles in government Americans are doing that which keeps America great. The more God that is prohibited in American government the less America is great. So on government property whether it is Federal, State or local government the emblems of America’s heritage should remain to remind the government what the basis for the rule of law comes from. Part of that heritage is also Judeo-Greco-Roman influence. There is no shame for a secular government to emblemize reminders of our heritage following the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman line.

 

This is the one-way street: no government meddling in religion; however religious influence on government is needful for good government for the people and by the people.

 

The thing is most Democrats disagree with the one-way street paradigm I briefly stated because of the Living Constitution doctrine has allowed Left oriented activist Judges to begin slowly aligning the nation away from the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers to utilize Christian morality and love to be the foundation of the rule of law.

 

Here are some remarks that disfavor the Living Constitution doctrine from deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

 

At least three serious difficulties flaw the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution. First, it misconceives the nature of the Constitution, which was designed to enable the popularly elected branches of government, not the judicial branch, to keep the country abreast of the times. Second, the brief writer’s version ignores the Supreme Court’s disastrous experiences when in the past it embraced contemporary, fashionable notions of what a living Constitution should contain. Third, however socially desirable the goals sought to be advanced by the brief writer’s version, advancing them through a freewheeling, nonelected judiciary is quite unacceptable in a democratic society.

 

 

The brief writer’s version of the living Constitution, in the last analysis, is a formula for an end run around popular government. To the extent that it makes possible an individual’s persuading one or more appointed federal judges to impose on other individuals a rule of conduct that the popularly elected branches of government would not have enacted and the voters have not and would not have embodied in the Constitution, the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society. (The Notion of a Living Constitution; by William H. Renquist – Read Entire PDF Document)

 

Here are some thoughts from Justice Antonin Scalia:

 

 

In a 35-minute speech Monday [2005], Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. …

 

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

 

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

 

 

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

 

“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution,” said Scalia … (Scalia Slams ‘Living Constitution’ Theory; by AP on Fox News; 3/14/05 – Read Entirety)

 

Here is excerpted definition of Original Intent from The Free Dictionary:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometimes called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by the legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

… Judges who do attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

 

… They argue that the interpretation of most written documents, legal or otherwise, involves a form of “communication” in which “the writer seeks to communicate with the reader”, Constitutional interpretation is no different, originalists say, because it involves the attempt of judges, as readers, to understand the meaning of a constitutional provision as conveyed by the Framers and ratifiers who authored it. Originalists believe that judges who fail to employ this method of interpretation transform courts into naked power organs.

 

Originalists contend that judges who deviate from the original understanding of a constitutional provision are forced to replace that understanding with their own subjective sympathies, social preferences, and notions of reasonableness. When judges substitute their own value choices for those actually written in the Constitution, federal courts become super-legislatures that make decisions based on the personal will of judges and not the law of the land (Day-Brite Lighting v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 72 S. Ct. 405, 96 L. Ed. 469 [1952]).

 

Originalists assert that judges who legislate from the bench violate the separation of powers by making law rather than interpreting and applying it. These judges also violate the principles of federalism, the second essential feature of U.S. constitutional democracy identified by originalists. Under these principles, courts must strike an appropriate balance between the sovereignties of state and federal governments, not allowing the smaller state governments to be wholly consumed by the ubiquitous federal government. Originalists contend that this balance impermissibly tips in favor of the federal government when federal courts invent new constitutional rights that state governments are then required to enforce.

 

 

Respect for principles of federalism, then, is intimately connected with the third essential feature of U.S. Constitutional democracy identified by originalists, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects certain freedoms from the popular will no matter how democratically the majority attempts to trample them. In all other areas, originalists assert, state and federal majorities are entitled to rule for no better reason than that they are majorities. Originalists explain that majority tyranny occurs if legislation invades areas properly left to individual freedom, and minority tyranny occurs if the majority is prevented from ruling where its power is legitimate.

 

Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution. Originalists cite a series of cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy as the antithesis of proper constitutional interpretation.

 

… (Read Entire Definition)

 

That is stage I have attempted to refute on the so-called Separation of Church and State theory the courts have maintained since the mid-20th century to stop America’s Christian Heritage on or in anything that is supported by any kind of taxpayer money.

 

In 1947 a five to four decision in the Supreme Court ex nihilo added Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church assuring them that the Federal Government would not establish a National Church thus that Church would not have worry about its parishioners paying taxes to a State Church as the British citizens had to do to support the Church of England (Anglican Church – Episcopalian in USA). In that letter Thomas Jefferson promised a “Wall of Separation” between the Church and the State.  Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the five Justices that egregiously added to the Constitution via a misinterpretation of Jefferson’s intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. (Dissenting Opinions of Everson v. Board of Education: Jackson and Rutledge)

 

Here is a great rendition of Original Intent pertaining to the First Amendment and the Disestablishment Clause.

 

JRH 6/16/12 (Thanks to CJ for inspiring me to ponder)

Please Support NCCR