American Voters are Accepting of Leftist Principles

American takes Flag from sickle-hammer

John R. Houk

© December 3, 2012


I believe there was a time that American voters had a concern about stealth Marxism/Communism transforming America into a Collective in which Liberty and Civil Rights were defined by the State rather than Constitutional Rule of Law. After Election 2012 I now believe Americans could care less about American Freedoms. People are simply willing to have their lives and culture defined by the State.


Feel me, hear me, see me and touch me and tell me what to believe for my own good. The toehold to despotism is the illusion of government dependent beneficence. If the government is the hand that feeds you and the creator of a temporal synthetic existence causing security euphoria, then actual Liberty won and instituted by law by the people and for the people will be lost to an oligarchic bureaucracy that in turn has government policy distributed by a ruling elite.


The polarization in America is between hardcore Leftists that have convinced (apparently most) Americans that a Secular Humanist, Multicultural Diverse and Judeo-Christian destroying society is the path to utopia AND those Americans that have an awareness of fiscal responsibility, Social Conservatism based on Judeo-Christianity as well as the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers revolutionizing the Rule of Law of a Representative Republic.


We Americans on the Right side of the polarized scale must step up our level to communicate to Americans the risks to American Liberty by unwittingly investing in the Socialist-Marxist-Communist journey to the illusion of a man-made utopia. Friends, there is no such thing as a utopia that realizes the greater good for the betterment of humankind when the architect is man.


Yes, I am a Christian. I am a Christian that believes a great debt is owed to Jews. Even though the Jews do not share the Christian sentiment of Salvation in Christ Jesus, the New Testament clearly proclaims that Salvation is of the Jews. Our Savior was born a Jew, raised a Jew and lived as a Jew in His earthly walk that led to the Crucifixion, Death and bodily Resurrection that Christians believe brings Deliverance from bondage of a Satan influenced age and a transference to the Kingdom of God.


The only utopia on planet Earth will be after the Creator forms the New Earth-New Jerusalem and the New Heaven in which the nations that have come to their senses believe in the Kingship of Jesus Christ. The Rule of Law will not be devised by humanity; rather humanity will have the Will of God imprinted in their new creation spirit knowing instantly the good rejecting any evil that separates from God Almighty.


Yes that is correct. I injected faith and politics as the God-Kind of life that government will be like without humanity calling the shots. The Founding Fathers realized that government should not have any business in religion yet that religion (specifically the Christian religion) must be the conscience of government. Robbing America of a Christian conscience has slowly changed our society in which greed, violence and distrust are embedded in our culture.


We Americans of the Right must find a way to reinstill the vision of the Founding Fathers complete with the conscience that keeps government in line and by extension our culture in a better moral state.


You may wonder what set off this line of thought. Well it was an article by Trevor Loudon that exposes the tentacles of the Left forming policy of the Democratic Party as administered by the Obama regime on the USA.


JRH 12/3/12 (Hat Tip: Danny Jeffrey)

Please Support NCCR

From Obscurity to President in 24 Months

BHO All Seeing Eye

Here we go with the first part of the free 25 page report from Global Watch. The first part begins with President Barack Hussein Obama. At this point I am also including a letter from the editor of Global Watch Daniel Bailey.
JRH 8/30/12

Please Support NCCR

From Obscurity to President in 24 Months
Why the New World Order Changed Face!
By Global Watch
Daniel Bailey, Chief Editor
Nancy Sutherland, Global Watch Publications
Letter from the Editor
It’s simply astonishing that we are moving towards the final year of Barack Obama’s first presidential term. The oath taken by Barack Obama in Washington, January 2009, to become the 44th US president has now become a distant memory, simply because of the magnitude of global issues that have faced him and the international community over the last 24 months.
Over the last several years we have witnessed unprecedented major International Events such as the G20 Summit in London to address the incredible collapse of some of the worlds (sic) leading finance houses as well as the Copenhagen Meeting that ended in so called failure. Additionally we have also witnessed an incredible attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to build bridges with the Anglican Church by extending an olive branch to dissatisfied clergy.
We have also seen the creation of a new post in Europe for a President of Europe, a simply unbelievable event which we believe has prophetical significance for the coming emergence of the Antichrist. We have seen the continual development of the 10 bioregions as defined by the Club of Rome in their 1973 blueprint and we have all been made aware of the significant and controversial idea that global warming is responsible for some of the bizarre weather patterns now being experienced in different parts of the earth. Added to that is the very serious and growing threat posed by Iran and its nuclear weapons program as well as the continuing threat of terrorism.
We thank you for supporting our ministry as we continue to provide these special reports that will hopefully provide some value in understanding the events that are facing us today.
Daniel Bailey
Chief Editor
Barack Obama is not the Antichrist. It is important that we continue to drum this through. When the Antichrist Identity Report Series was released, there were numerous complaints sent to us accusing us of spreading propaganda by claiming that he was the Antichrist.
If people had taken the time to actually read what we were saying and not jump to conclusions they would have understood that the focus was not on trying to prove that Obama was the Antichrist, but rather the US president was implementing stealth policy changes designed to subvert the America under a Socialist dictatorial regime which would harmonize with the world government agenda.
This agenda is an Antichrist agenda because it is led by groups who have little regard for Jesus Christ and whom wish to have their own leader at the helm of controlling the entire planet.
The question remains as to whether Barack Obama is aware of the world government agenda. Many of us will be aware that John F Kennedy was assassinated because he began to resist the direction that the global elite wanted him to follow. On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.
President Kennedy was then assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continue to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper “currency” circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes. Since the time of Kennedy no other American President has possessed the will to stand up to the agenda of the “Shadow Government”, those behind the scenes who are significant decision makers within the Illuminati network who control the destiny of nations including the United States of America.
Is Barack Obama aware of the Illuminati and the ultimate objective to enslave mankind under a global dictatorship where all people will be required to register under a global security and payment system which the Bible calls the “Mark of the Beast”. (?)
Some believe that as an American President Obama simply follows orders that are given to him without fully realising the implications of those decisions. Others believe he would never be aware of the bigger picture until he was sworn in as American President and then his eyes opened up to the real truth about the New World Order. Still others believe that Obama was chosen because he already knows and agrees with the plan to unite the world under a global government and system of control.
In this article we put forth our opinion on Obama’s New World Order and whether Obama is aware or ignorant to the ultimate aim of the global elite who control the world economy.
We believe that President Obama has been brought into to do a job without possibly a complete and full realisation that all the decisions he is making are actually contributing to the subversion of the United States to a dictatorial global government. This school of thought is based on a full understanding of the Pyramid of Power that is observed on the American Dollar Bill, a Masonic symbol of the global agenda for the establishment of a “New Secular Order”.
The American dollar bill is probably the world’s best known banknote, but how many people appreciate why the Great Seal of the United States of America is printed on it, or understand what these ancient symbols mean? The symbols of the Great Seal, which are featured on the dollar bill, are clearly intended to embody the beliefs of those who founded the United States of America.
The current design of the Great Seal was approved by Congress on 20 June 1782, and the seal was introduced to the dollar bill in 1935. The continued official use of Masonic symbols today indicates that these beliefs remain at the heart of the U.S. establishment.
What were the beliefs of the founders of America? Numerous sources outside of Freemasonry report that the vast majority of the American founders and signatories of the U.S. Constitution were Freemasons. Anti-Mason material routinely claims that almost all of America’s founding fathers were members of a Masonic Order.
Official sources within Freemasonry counter-claim that some but not all of America’s founders were Freemasons, and point out that the Masonic status of many of the alleged Masonic founding fathers cannot be proven conclusively. The aforementioned school of thought is corroborated by well-documented reports from some authoritative Masonic sources; thus, Manly Palmer Hall, a thirty-third degree Mason, wrote:
“Of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention, all but five were Masons.”
To provide some context to how Barack Obama would fit into the agenda of the
New World Order one needs to focus specifically on the all seeing eye which is located at the top of the pyramid.
The All-Seeing Eye has been an important symbol within freemasonry and rosicrucian traditions for hundreds of years. So it is not surprising to find pride among occultists who understand the significance of this emblem:
“Our beautiful seal is an expression of Freemasonry, an expression of occult ideas.” (Wyckoff, H. S. The Great American Seal. The Mystic Light, the Rosicrucian Magazine, p.56)
The first attempts at including the All-Seeing Eye on the seal were not successful. The first die of the Great Seal was cut from brass in 1782. In 1825, 1841, 1877, 1885, and 1902, new dies were cut, but each time the reverse went uncut and unused . . . the Illuminati’s plan for the New World Order had not been advanced far enough, yet, to be announced.
The New World Order is an expression that has been used by illuminized Freemasonry since the days of Adam Weishaupt (its founder) to signify the coming world government.
“It is necessary to establish a universal regime over the whole world”, Weishaupt had said. (Writings of the Illuminati, 1780)
One of the most distinguishing features of the symbolism is that there is a gap between the all seeing eye and the body of the pyramid. It is within this symbolic visual that the answer lies regarding the nature of the global elite.
The all seeing eye is representative of the illuminated elite directly involved in black magic and power rituals as is visually demonstrated on the next page.
NEXT: Illuminati

More Wilheru: Focusing on Founding Fathers and the Constitution

America's Christian Foundation

John R. Houk

© February 25, 2012


Wilheru comments on my comment which is as follows:


Implication is the Leftist/Atheist reasoning to abandon Original Intent in favor of the Living Constitution fallacy that Left Wing activist judges have employed since the middle 20th century.


THOSE QUOTES ARE NOT FAKE! To say they are fake is like a person from Chicago talking about a river in Egypt – Da Nile. [Editor: this is edited slightly from the original comment]


The line of comments comes from a post entitled: “Wilheru Criticizes Standing Up to Militant Atheists”. You can read the context of our comments by reading the post (which has been cross posted on several of my blogs) and the comments following.



Posted: February 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM


Wilheru says:


What is the NeoCon (assuming) biblical literalist reasoning to abandon almost all laws from Leviticus?


John says:


Hmm … I thought I had already covered my stand about the Law of the Old Testament vis-a-vie the New Testament. It could have been someone else though. Here it goes.


Christ is the fulfillment of the Law which does not end the Law; however Christ’s Atonement expiates the penalty (aka curse) of the Law. Thus the Law of Moses is part of the Judeo-Christian foundation influencing the Founding Fathers and the Great Commission of Christ to share the Good News of Redemption has enabled the West (not just America) to move out of medieval punishments that are now considered ridiculous.




Wilheru says:


Besides, nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments is there any mention that churches should be subsidized by the Government, but there is a clear implication that they should not be subsidized because that would be a step in the direction of a state church.


John says:


Actually the Constitution says nothing about “Churches” and uses the term “religion”. From the writings of the most ardent of Deists as well as Christian Founding Fathers, it is evident that “religion” referred to Christianity.


The First Amendment specifically says:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,


So let’s see. The Legislative Branch (i.e. Congress) shall make NO Law Establishing a State religion; which is to say in context of the Founding Fathers, Congress shall make no Christian Denomination the State religion of the USA.


There is NO place here that forbids Christianity from being an influence or having a political voice in the U.S. Government (i.e. Executive Branch, Legislative Branch AND Judicial Branch). It is simple; Congress cannot establish a State Church. Since there is no mention of Christianity being forbidden from interacting with the government, any interpretation that presumes Christianity must stay off of taxpayer owned public property is a false assumption.


AND to nail my point the First Amendment continues:


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.


Congress cannot legislate the free exercise of religion which would include in government. Congress cannot legislate the abridgement of Free Speech which is inclusive of religion in government. Congress cannot legislate the abridgement of a Free Press which would include religion writing about government. Congress cannot abridge the right of people to assemble peaceably which would include a religious service on taxpayer-public property. Congress cannot abridge the right of people to petition THE GOVERNMENT for redress of grievances which would include the various Christian Denominations that may have a private or public grievance.


There has been a lot of clarity there until the Judicial Branch began muddying that clarity by legislating from the Bench rather than interpreting the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial Branch has become nearly despotic in its authority in the last 60 to 70 years. The Judicial Branch needs reformed to restrict its duty to interpretation rather than legislating.


Wilheru says:


You’re right about the first quote thing, sorry. It isn’t fake, however it isn’t authored by Washington, so it’s hard to tell if he really believed that. Some quotes by Jefferson, on the other hand, are clearly quote mined. Reading the text in full contradicts the conclusions one might draw from reading just the quote.


John says:


As to quoting Jefferson, I don’t think there is as much quote mining as there is political spectrum mining. A Secularist (in the sense of Separation of Church and State Christians or other religions), Secular Humanist, and/or atheists can easily interpret Jefferson quotes as keeping Christianity out of the government as in the political process. Jefferson was clearly more Deist in the humanist sense than many other Founding Fathers; however some of the scholarship and writings of Jefferson also clearly shows he was not anti-Christian as the European Deists (as espoused by the French Revolution). Jefferson did write a Bible that included Christian Morality and Principles but abandoned the Christian Miraculous. I believe quotes of Jefferson read in the perspective of his own Bible demonstrates his thoughts that Christianity as an influence is something government should not restrict but rather to embrace as a way to keep society devolving into the dark side of majority rule democracy with the corruption of cultural values. In thus way the Right Side of the political spectrum can still claim Jefferson regarded the influence of Christianity as part of the Foundation (but CERTAINLY not the only influence) of the America Republic.


Wilheru says:


At some point I just gave up tracking down all quotes and am no longer interested. I have more important things to do than to argue with someone over the Internet who doesn’t accept reason (otherwise that one wouldn’t need to quote mine people) over what people who died more than three centuries ago felt. Goodbye and enjoy!


John says:


Actually Wilheru I believe I used a great deal of reason to demonstrate the Founding Fathers believed Christianity was a part of the foundation for America. I have to say also part of that foundation included the classics of Greco-Roman philosophy. However some of the greatest influence was from John Locke of which large portions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can be seen sometimes verbatim. Read John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, also titled A Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government, Book Two. John Locke is steeped in the Christian faith as an influence on secular government. Locke was not too popular with the British Monarchy.


Wilheru when you write in disdain of people who died more than three centuries ago you beckon to my point of Original Intent over the relatively modern political thought that the U.S. Constitution is a Living Constitution that can be molded to any interpretation a political ideology demands (typically judicial fiat) rather than the Constitutional process of Amendments.


If this is the last we are to comment to each other I bid you farewell or as the Founding Fathers’ would have said, I bid you Godspeed.


JRH 2/25/12

Annoying Atheists

Atheists- No Christians in Hell


John R. Houk

© February 4, 2012


I received a comment from a defender of atheism identifying himself as Michael yesterday. There are atheists that have no belief in God and that is fine, we live in America. Then there are atheists that may be described as Militant Atheists that go the next level of an atheist belief system. That next level involves insulting believers in God topping off the insult with some kind of self-aggrandized intellectual superiority complex that all believers in God are stupid and uneducated. Such intellectual supremacism is fraudulent because a truly intellectual person – whether religious or atheistic – would comprehend denigrating someone is a sign of arrogance. An arrogant person is a contemptuous person; i.e. when the arrogance is a defining essence of one’s character. Everyone will have moments of arrogance; however wisdom usually tempers arrogance with time. That is not the case when arrogance is a constant of one’s personality toward individuals because one is more intellectual than another or worse only perceives they are more intellectual than another based on a belief system.


Admittedly there is a tone of arrogance in those devoted to a religion because the devotion means the competing religion is an error; hence when one tells another they must join one’s religion because it is the true religion the essence of arrogance is involved. Nonetheless, when one begins to denigrate another’s intelligence or intellect on a personal level for refusing the perceived truth then the character scale begins to tip a character flaw toward ingrained arrogance.


Honestly I have been guilty of that tipping scale especially when I have been angered by another’s intransigent haughty arrogance. Is temporary arrogance a character flaw? It is my opinion it is not a character flaw unless the temporary transforms into the permanent.


Who judges when temporary arrogance becomes a permanent character flaw? On an individual basis this may be difficult. The judgment call should be by the council of friends and peers. The only problem with friends and peers is the potential for a group affinity of intellectual or religious superiority that desires to break down or harm another for one’s perceived inferiority.


Group Superiority Complexes can only be tempered by the group’s ideology; i.e. whether or not the ideology or the theology has ingrained permanent arrogance that demands the belief that the “other” is an inferiority that must be suppressed or eliminated.


Let’s look at some examples.


Islamic Supremacism demands that the unbeliever (kafir) must convert to Islam or risk living a life of inferiority or face death for insults or outright refusal to accept any form of submission to Islam. This rashness is embedded in Islamic holy writings.


Christian Superiority emanates from two sources. One source can be as brutal as Islamic Supremacism. The other source comes from Biblical Scriptures especially the New Testament as revealed to humans by the Holy Spirit.


The brutal source demands the spreading of Christianity by conquest and force much in the same path as Islam. Hence, Christian history is full of military campaigns of either internecine wars to attempt one single dogmatic opinion or wars of conquest with the primary purpose of exploiting conquered lands and the indigenous people. The subset of conquest by Christian armies was the implementation of forced conversions (although not on the scale of Islam in which millions of non-Muslims died for rejecting the Quran). The best examples of exploitive conquest and conversions are the Spanish conquest of the Americas (Portugal in present day Brazil). The best example internecine Christian wars can be seen between Arians and Catholics and latter between Protestant and Catholics. Subsets of these Christian wars were the persecution of Jews and Muslims especially in present day Spain (the Reconquista and the Inquisition).


The Biblical source for Christian Supremacism focuses on the New Testament. First of all the New Testament proclaims Jesus’ Redemption of humanity has paid the price of the penalties of the Law. Hence the curse of the Law that enabled physical penalties for homosexuality, adultery and other Old Testament capital crimes are paid for by the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus was all about sharing this Good News of Deliverance from the curse of the Law without force. If a Christian is mistreated for sharing the Gospel, the Christian is to shake the dust off of his/her feet move and on. Hopefully the sharing is a spiritual seed for someone to plant a seed that takes root through the hard ground (human spirit) to grow vines leading the life of Christ as a new creation.


Christian Supremacism in the latter is about doing no harm and hence points to an absence of the character flaw of iniquitous arrogance.


As you can tell it is the arrogance of Michael more than the disagreement with my thoughts on atheism that irked me. I believe the concept of atheism is evil because it is ungodly. An atheist will quite normally tell me that Christianity is evil perhaps because of the thought that humanity is held back by antiquated thoughts that are myths rather than reality.


The problem of arrogance occurs when Michael implies I am stupid and uneducated because of my beliefs or I respond in kind because I am insulted (do not render evil for evil).


Michael concludes his really thought out objections to Christianity (although I highly disagree with statements as facts, for it is the mere revisionism applied by Leftists and atheists) this way:


… The only thing about Christians that drives me nuts is the general lack of education and logic they use when applying it to anything including their own beliefs. I am not worried about the bible, or the schizophrenic whisperings of a “god” telling me what to do. I am sane and free of any delusion of where I will go when I die. If anything I feel sad for you and other Christians. It must be really sad to be under the thrall of such a petty deity, and a book filled with so many contradictions and falsehoods. If you should at any time need counseling or a helpful answer to any question that might lead you out of the Dark Ages, feel free to email me.


I have to admit Michael’s mistaken warping of facts and his beliefs on Church and State irked me. It was when the very end of Michael’s disagreement with me that tipped over being irked to anger for the apparent insult toward me as being a part of the Christian faith. I am guessing I could list more intellectuals with an affinity for religion in global history than Michael can. That alone is a slap in the face of atheism. And I do realize he might come up with a larger list of atheistic intellectuals for one modern year than I, but I bet would be close.


At this point I will simply contradict Michael’s assertions in the same manner of his disagreement with me.


Michael says: Atheism is not a belief system, religion, world-view, or even philosophy. It is merely the opposite of theism. That being said there are ANTI-theists, Pearlists, and agnostics who have a world view you could attack. Either way, to say an atheist believes that humanity is supreme is a fallacy. Evolution proves quite the opposite. Humans, if anything, are just another primate who has developed skills and language.


Response: Atheism is a belief system that acts like a religion and has a philosophy to defend anti-god beliefs. Check this out: I know what an atheist is and I know what a theist is. So it would seem that an “ANTI-theist” would be the same as an atheist. After doing a little Googling the separation between atheism and anti-theism is a very slim divide. The best description of the slim divide that I found is an answer.


On Rational Atheism


When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn’t quite compatible with anti-theism. People who are indifferent to the existence of alleged gods are atheists because they don’t believe in the existence of any gods, but at the same time this indifference prevents them from being anti-theists as well. To a degree, this describes many if not most atheists because there are plenty of alleged gods they simply don’t care about and, therefore, also don’t care enough to attack belief in such gods. Atheistic indifference towards not only theism but also religion is relatively common and would probably be standard if religious theists weren’t so active in proselytizing and expecting privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their institutions.



Rational atheism may be based on many things: lack of evidence from theists, arguments which prove that god-concepts are self contradictory, the existence of evil in the world, etc. Rational atheism cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is harmful because even something that’s harmful may be true. Not everything that’s true about the universe is good for us, though.


On Rational Anti-Theism


Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.



… Rational anti-theism may be based on a belief in one of many possible harms which theism could do; it cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is false. Not all false beliefs are necessarily harmful and even those that are aren’t necessarily worth fighting.


The above atheism/anti-theism fine line is sculpted from: “Atheism & Anti-Theism: What’s the Difference? What is Anti-Theism?” by Austin Cline.


So basically an atheist could care less about religion and an anti-theist militantly works against religion. This kind of sounds like the apologists trying to establish the fine line between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam in which both believe the exact same thing, but the radicals act on their beliefs, right?


In Michael’s original comment of Pearlists, I did not understand the word so I thought it might be “Pear Lists.” After Googling the original I discovered the thought being conveyed is like Pearl-ist. Sorry about that Michael.


Here is the Urban Dictionary definition for Pearlist:


1. Pearlist


1. A person who believes in Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic, (P.E.A.R.L) the essence of the scientific method.

2. One who uses the scientific method.


2. Pearlist


A person who believes in the use of


As opposed to a FLAWSist.


Sir, Do you believe in god?
Good grief no, I am a pearlist.


So a Pearlist is a specific kind of atheist.


An agnostic is an easy one. That is a person who is uncertain of the existence of God rather than an outright denier of God’s existence.


After reading Michael’s short list of who I should aim my pro-Christian toward, it seems to me that Michael falls into all the categories except agnostic.


Michael stipulates that “…to say an atheist believes that humanity is supreme is a fallacy.” Hmm … If one does not believe in the existence of God he must believe in something. To deny the belief in something is to say an atheist is brain dead. Michael thinks of himself as an informed rational educated intellectual; ergo Michael is not brain dead and I have to assume at least some atheists are as intellectual as Michael. In denying the existence in God an atheist must believe in some form of humanist ideology that elevates itself above religious faith. The conclusion then is that atheists believe humanity in its physical essence is supreme because only humanity has the sentience to measure and draw conclusions from that which is observable. Atheistic Humanistic Supremacism is a concept that is not a fallacy but an unfortunate reality.


Michael says: Science is not a deity so it cannot be worshipped. Science is merely the method by which we can prove things not unlike mathematics. It has a self-examining/reviewing factor to it and its success rate is very high. I am not saying I am a god, as this would be a delusion. Just as belief in an outer presence who controls and watches everything from beyond is a delusion.


Response: Well duh … science is not a deity. Nonetheless, it is on such a high pedestal in which objectivity is nearly deified (rather admitted or not) that science is a religion to godless atheists. Yes it would be a delusion to say you are a god, it would be delusional; however when one sets themselves as the arbiter of truth one makes oneself a god (wittingly or unwittingly). The denial of this self-aggrandizement is a delusion.


Michael says: I would consider myself a center left voter. In this you are right. I am educated. I help my community. I donate to charity. I don’t look down on other people for being gay or of another race. I don’t think women are worth less than a man, and I think they have the right to say what happens to their own bodies.


Response: I will pray for God’s mercy for being a center-left voter. Just teasing. I am certain there are many poor religious souls that vote on the left side of the political spectrum.


Michael you donate to charity. What kind of charities do you donate to? Perhaps Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger)? Or the SPLC? Or perhaps some LGBT organization (Good Preaching) that is a 501(3)c organization? I don’t know what your fancy is. I won’t look down on you for supporting baby murderers, Biblical Christian haters or morally ungodly people that have deluded themselves they have been born a homosexual or are confused about their sexuality even the equipment package born with pretty much deciphers the mystery. Perhaps you do not donate to any of these organizations above; nonetheless it is a fair educated guess that an atheist donates to like minded organizations. For an atheist that is fine. For a Biblical Christian it is reprehensible.


Michael says: I just don’t believe in an arcane Middle Eastern desert tribal god from the Bronze Age. I DO want however to keep the religious aspects out of schools. There is no place for this silly superstition in an advanced society. That being said if someone chooses to put on the shackles of faith on their own time and in their own space then they should feel free. It is their right.


Response: Ah, arcane. My God is only mysterious and obscure to hardened hearts that refuse to listen to the Good News to discover Deliverance from this dark age via the Redemptive act of Jesus Christ the Son of God (here’s a mystery: Father, Son and Holy Spirit – three persons are One God and Jesus is fully human and fully God and a Believer is a new creation in Christ Jesus while God is in the Believer). This is only arcane if one’s reason fails to comprehend there is more to existence than the material seen cosmos.


As an atheist you believe God Almighty is a mythical non-entity worshipped occasionally by a bunch of Hebrews that ousted polytheistic Canaanites. As a Christian God Almighty is the entirety of existence that began to reveal Himself through a bloodline that flowed through the Hebrews and then specifically through the Hebrew tribe of Judah and narrower through the bloodline of King David the son of Jesse of which the human part of the incarnated God Jesus came to Redeem humanity from Adam’s folly.


There are no shackles in Christ Jesus. There is life abundantly in Christ Jesus.


Michael says: It is also the right of the rest of the country NOT to be forced to deal with such things on a governmental and educational level.


Response: I completely agree! Religion should never be forced via government or education; however it is the right of individuals to exercise their faith in government and in education on a voluntary basis.


Michael says: As far as the founding fathers are concerned, you are completely mistaken. They did not in fact want Christianity to be the basis of our country. This is a myth propagated by the right and religious. Educated people know that the founding fathers believed that religion [was] not the way to go as the basis of a free and democratic society.


Response: Actually Michael you have been completely propagandized by Leftist revisionism. In case you failed to read the Founding Father quotes on Religion and Christianity here is a review:


George Washington

“I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.” June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” 1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…” April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus….I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

James Madison (Known as the Father of the Constitution)

“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” June 20, 1785

“It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian.” In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

“We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

There are more quotes – Check it out!


The sources are cited! You can follow the link and can read some more quotes. Educated people can read the original sources and comprehend just how much the Founding Fathers (even as Deists) valued Christian principles, Christian values and Christian morality.


Michael says: Even looking at European history this makes sense. Why would any group wanting to be free of a king and/or rule of a church want to restart a society with another at the help? That’s the stuff of pure fantasy.


Response: Michael you are demonstrating your religious blinders. Many Christians came to America for Religious Freedom to escape an established Church and the rule of law that forced taxes to support the established Church and to disqualify any non-State Churches from worshipping freely and openly. By the time of the Founding Fathers America had several Christian Denominations and some of these were indeed State Churches representative of each Colony that after victory would be a State within the federation of the USA. The First Amendment guarantees that all the Christian Denomination have Religious Freedom without fear of the Federal government establishing a State Church. As far as faith is concerned the Founding Fathers were concerned a Denomination would exercise more authority over a handful of Denominations and do with this with the sanction of the Federal government. The thinking was to keep government out of Christianity yet with Christianity being an influence on government. The writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers makes this quite clear! To believe otherwise is Leftist/atheist fantasy.


Michael says: The fact is most of the founding fathers were either, agnostic, atheist, members of the Hellfire Club, Free Masons, or any number of other non-Christian church believing groups. One rewrote the bible excluding all supernatural events. One mentioned we needed more lighthouses than churches because they at least served a purpose.


Response: Actually that which you call a fact is a presumption. A minority of the Founding Fathers might fit the Hellfire Club (Benjamin Franklin), agnostic or atheist description. AND it is evident the majority of Founding Fathers that were within the Freemasons believed in Christian Principles, Christian Values and Christian Values. Leftists, Church-State Separatists and atheists love it that a scholar Chris Rodda has refuted the scholarship of David Barton that promotes the history that America has Christian foundations. I find it typical of a Church-State Separatist to forget that the majority of the first colonists to the Americas came as Christians to establish some form of Christian utopia separate from the persecution of State Churches from Europe. Rodda goes right into the controversy of the level of Christianity practiced by the Founding Fathers which led thirteen American colonies to become the United States of America.


Certainly Barton skews his scholarship toward a pro-Christian point of view on the Founding Fathers. Criticizing of this and not realizing that scholars like Chris Rodda are also skewing scholarship to the Leftist point of view is a bit hypocritical. Let’s look at one Rodda’s confident writings skewering Barton on the issue of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (Tripoli) signed in 1797 by President John Adams.


Article XI of the treaty provides language that at first sight justifies Leftists’ and atheists’ view of absolute secularism in America’s founding:


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, … (Bold Emphasis SlantRight)


This is the part that is quoted by the Leftist view of history. Now let’s look at the entire article:


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Bold Emphasis SlantRight)


The Constitution of the United States of America in the First Amendment forbids Congress to establish a State Church; ergo America is a Secular Nation with a Christian cultural heritage. The treaty was signed with a State that had an established religion in Islam; however note the wording implies the secular USA has no beef with any Muslim (Musselmen) or Mehomitan (Muslim) nation. Article XI merely states that this treaty is not between religious faiths but rather between a non-established Church secular State of the USA and those of the Muslim faith or nations embracing the Muslim faith.


Rodda comes after Barton because he erroneously cited President Washington as the signer of the treaty. So what? It still doesn’t change the fact that the treaty is between the USA where there is no established Christian religion (i.e. Denomination) and a nation (specifically Morocco) or nations wholly devoted to Islam. Adam’s is not repudiating Christianity!


Rodda does not address the obvious of the context of Article XI, rather she diverts attention to scholarly misquotes and to an obscure document found by David Barton. The only Rodda proves is that his scholarly acumen in citing who said what was slipshod, she does not prove the actual quotes in context are wrong. It is amazing that someone said the things quoted by Barton  but not to who Barton attributed the quote. Rodda ignores the fact the data is still there. It only means Rodda has a better grasp of what pleases academia than Barton. Rodda shows that Barton would not have gotten his PhD in history because of sloppy mechanics not because of sloppy conclusions.


Michael says: Thomas Paine, the man Tea Partiers tout because of the pamphlet “Common Sense”, also wrote one of the most important books on religion in the last few centuries. This book was called “The Age of Reason”. I urge you to read this.


Response: Thomas Paine was an awesome Pamphleteer and nothing else. He only lived in America one year before his pen inspired Americans to support the Revolution and to break away from Britain. He was a radical even among American Deists. Check this out from The History Guide:



Paine settled in Philadelphia where he soon began a new career as a journalist. He contributed articles to the Pennsylvania Magazine on a wide range of topics. Thus on January 10, 1776, he published a short pamphlet, Common Sense, which immediately established his reputation as a revolutionary propagandist. Although he had only been in America less than a year, Paine committed himself to the cause of American independence. He attacked monarchical government and the alleged virtues of the British constitution, opposing any reconciliation with Great Britain. He also urged an immediate declaration of independence and the establishment of a republican constitution.


Paine was convinced that the American Revolution  was a crusade for a superior political system and that America was ultimately unconquerable. He did as much as any writer could to encourage resistance and to inspire faith in the Continental Army. I essays published in the Pennsylvania Journal under the heading “Crisis,” Paine attacked the faint-hearted, campaigned for a more efficient federal and state tax system to meet the costs of war, and encouraged the belief that Britain would eventually recognize American independence.


Often tactless, Paine provoked considerable controversy. He was invariable hard-pressed for money and had to depend upon the generosity of his American friends and the occasional reward from the French envoy in America. When the War came to an end, his financial position was so precarious that he had to campaign to obtain recompense from the government. Congress eventually rewarded him $3000. Pennsylvania granted him ?00 in cash, while New York proved more generous and gave him a confiscated Loyalist farm at New Rochelle.


After American independence had been won, Paine played no part in the establishment of the new republic. Instead, he busied himself trying to invent a smokeless candle and devising an iron bridge.



… Burke’s resistance to the French Revolution inspired Paine to write his most influential work, the Rights of Man (Part I in 1791, Part II in 1792). In Part I, Paine urged political rights for all men because of their natural equality in the sight of God. All forms of hereditary government, including the British constitution, were condemned because they were based on farce or force. Only a democratic republic could be trusted to protect the equal political rights of all men. Part II was even more radical for Paine argued for a whole program of social legislation to deal with the shocking condition of the poor. His popularity sounded the alarm and he was forced to leave Britain in September 1792. He was condemned in his absence and declared an outlaw.


Paine immediately immersed himself in French affairs for the next ten years although he still hoped to see a revolution in Britain. In his Letter Addressed to the Addressers of the Late Proclamation (London, 1792), he rejected the policy of appealing to parliament for reform and instead urged British radicals to call a national convention to establish a republican form of government.


In August 1792, Paine was made a French citizen and a month later was elected to the National Convention. Since he did not speak French, and had to have his speeches read for him, Paine did not make much of an impact on the Convention. His association with the moderate republicans (Girondins) made him suspect in the Jacobin camp. In January 1793, he alienated many extremists by opposing the execution of Louis XVI. When military defeat fanned Jacobinism into hysteria, he fell victim to the Terror. From December 28, 1793, until November 4, 1794, he was incarcerated in Luxembourg prison until the intercession of the new American minister, James Monroe, secured his release.


During his imprisonment, Paine embarked on his third influential work, The Age of Reason (London and Boston, 1794-95). A deist manifesto to the core, Paine acknowledged his debt to Newton and declared that nature was the only form of divine revelation, for God had clearly established a uniform, immutable and eternal order throughout creation. Paine rejected Christianity, denied that the Bible was the revealed word of God, condemned many of the Old Testament stories as immoral and claimed that the Gospels were marred by discrepancies. There was nothing really that new in Paine’s argument, but the bitterness of his attack on the Christian churches and his attempt to preach deism to the masses made him more enemies than before.


After wearing out his welcome in Paris, Paine finally returned to America in October 1802 and was well-received by Thomas Jefferson. Increasingly neglected and ostracized, Paine’s last years were marked by poverty, poor health and alcoholism. When he died in New York on June 8, 1809, he was virtually an outcast. Since he could not be buried in consecrated ground, he was laid to rest n a corner of his small farm in New Rochelle.


Paine never established a political society or organization and was not responsible for a single reforming measure. His achievements were all with his pen so it is difficult to accurately assess his influence. Although he spent more than ten years in France, he had very little influence on the course of the French Revolution. He did not really understand the Revolution and therefore had little impact on its intellectual foundations. Indeed, to the Jacobins on the far left, Paine appeared as too moderate and faint-hearted.


Paine’s political influence was greatest in England. In intellectual terms, his Rights of Man was his greatest political work and was certainly the best-selling radical political tract in late 18th century England. Before Paine, British radicals sought a reform of Parliament which would grant to all men the vote for members of the House of Commons. In his Rights of Man, Paine abandoned this approach and, rejecting the lessons of history, maintained that each age had the right to establish a political system which satisfied its needs. He rested his case on the moral basis of the natural equality of men in the sight of God. Since government is a necessary evil that men accepted as a means of protecting their natural rights (cf. John Locke), the only legitimate government was that established by a contract between all members of society and one in which all men preserved all their natural rights, except the individual right to use force. Paine argued rationally that all men had an equal claim to political rights and that government must rest on the ultimate sovereignty of the people.


Thomas Paine was not so universally liked by the Founding Fathers. Paine was a hero propagandist for the Revolutionary War but his radicalism so intense that he was lucky he had a nation to go to die. There are several links on this The History Guide page of Thomas Paine’s works. If you read The Age of Reason that Michael suggests to read you will discover that Paine had no affinity for organized Christianity; however even Paine’s Deism points to Christianity for principles, values and morals of a nation.


Michael Says: The motto you refer to was made in the 50’s when white Christians were the majority. I don’t believe this motto is very constitutional. It should be struck down and the secularist motto the founders originally created should be reinstated.


Response: I admit “One Nation Under God” is a 1950s act of Congress. I find it interesting that Michael uses the race card as the reason for the passage of the motto. This is fascinated because Black Americans in the 1950s attending religious services were overwhelmingly Christian. I sincerely doubt Black Christians would have condemned the National Motto even during the last days of American segregation. Reverend Martin Luther King was in the nascent days of his ministry. I am convinced King would have supported the National Motto.


At any rate One Nation Under God is not so much the National motto as it is a phrase inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s. The Pledge history is fascinating and evolving. The Pledge was written by a Socialist (aka Leftist) Christian Minister by the name of Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original Pledge looked like this:


“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”


In 1923 The Pledge was amended to this:


“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”


In 1954 WWII hero President Eisenhower was confronted with godless Soviet Communism at the beginnings of the Cold War. Over the objection of Bellamy’s daughter the phrase “Under God” was added to one nation. Leftist activist Judges had not began whittling away the true meaning of the First Amendment yet and Americans as a whole perceived themselves as citizens of a nation of Christians in the 1950s. Radical Left Wing politics of Socialism, Marxism and Communism were and should still be perceived as belief systems that erode American culture rather than enhancing American culture.


Then there is the history of the actual National Motto: In God we Trust.


America declared its independence from Britain in 1776. After the victory of the Revolutionary War the Founding Fathers realized that the liberated Thirteen Colonies needed a bit more cohesion to survive independence from future threats to American Liberty. Hence the Constitutional Convention ratified a constitution in 1787 for the Thirteen former Colonies to say yea or nay. New Hampshire became the ninth State (6-21-1788) to ratify the Constitution thus establishing a Federal Union in which the four last States would eventually join. By 1790 the last hold-out Rhode Island joined the Union.


The time is important because the motto In God we Trust is derived from the National Anthem written at the end of the War of 1812 in the year 1814 a mere 26 years after the Constitution. Francis Scott Key was the author of the National Anthem and the part of the lyrics that became the National Motto are these:


“…And this be our motto: In God is our trust. And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” (Bold emphasis SlantRight)


The Star Spangled Banner became the National Anthem in 1931 by an act of Congress:


“The Star-Spangled Banner” was officially made the national anthem by Congress in 1931, although it already had been adopted as such by the army and the navy.


Even though Congress did not officially institutionalize the National Anthem and the National Motto until the 20th century, both had an unofficial use by taxpayer supported government entities from the early days of the Republic.


In a letter dated 11-20-1861 by Secretary of Treasury Salmon P. Chase to Director of the Mint James Pollock to incorporate a godly motto on American coinage:


Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.” (Bold emphasis SlantRight)

The point is the Federal government within all Branches of Executive, Legislative and even the Judiciary did not challenge the constitutionality of Christian terminology on Federal coins and currency in the earliest days of the American Republic.


Michael writes about what he calls the original National Motto: E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. This is one side of the Great Seal of the United States. I am a bit surprised that Michael did not mention the flip side of the Great Seal: Novus Ordo Seclorum – New Order of the Ages. Conspiracy Theorists like New World Order better.


John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were assigned the task of developing a design for the Great Seal. Check out the process that ended up being one of the mottos of the Great Seal:



In July 1776, almost immediately after signing the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were tasked with designing a seal and motto for the new nation.  In August John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, that he had proposed the “Choice of Hercules” as the image for the seal.  Adams believed that individuals should choose to lead moral personal lives and to devote themselves to civic duty, and he preferred a secular allegory for that moral lesson.


The other two committee members proposed images that drew on Old Testament teachings, but neither shared the beliefs of those today who assert the role of God in our national government.  Benjamin Franklin, a deist who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, proposed “Moses lifting up his Wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh, in his Chariot overwhelmed with the Waters.”  This motto he believed, captured the principle that “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”


Thomas Jefferson, … envisioned “The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.” …


The three men worked in consultation with an artist, Eugène Pierre Du Simitière, who rejected all of the ideas of the three committee members.  His own first attempt was also rejected by Congress.  It would take years and several more committees before Congress would approve the final design, still in use today, of an American bald eagle clutching thirteen arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other.


Only the motto “E Pluribus Unum” (“from many, one”) survived from the committee on which Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin had served.  All had agreed on that motto from the beginning. (“In God We Trust” or “E Pluribus Unum”? The Founding Fathers Preferred the Latter Motto,” By Thomas A. Foster; HNN 11-8-11)


Note that the Deist concept of Christianity appears to be the emphasis; nonetheless it is Christian symbolism involved in the thought process leading to E Pluribus Unum.


The last part of Michael’s comment is something already addressed in this response which Michael starts utilizing pejorative language toward the intelligence of Christian.


JRH 2/4/12

Wilheru Criticizes Standing Up to Militant Atheists

Botticelli. 9 Circles of an Atheist


John R. Houk

© February 1, 2012


I blog at more place than my primary blog here at I was checking for comment at my Word Press blog known as the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). Below is the comment to the post “Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society” ( version). You can read the comment which is followed by my response.


Wilheru Comment

January 31, 2012 at 10:10 AM


This doesn’t make atheists angry, it makes us laugh. It makes us laugh because, frankly, you are misrepresenting atheism. How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.

Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system. It does not forbid religion to influence the government, nor should it. What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.

You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.

I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.


Wilheru says,How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.”


That is the same ploy ignorant polytheistic Romans propagandized against Christianity until Jesus won the hearts and minds of Roman leadership. The bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ is a spiritual transformation of the inner man aka the human spirit from darkness to a new creation in Christ Jesus. The only argument within Christianity is if this spiritual transformation in the Communion/Eucharist is an actual outer manifestation or if it is an outer symbolic manifestation of a spiritual reality. But atheists cannot comprehend the spiritual because their spiritual eyes have been dulled and blinded to spiritual realities. Go figure.


Wilheru says,Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system.”


WHERE does the Constitution FORBID the use of government funds – e.g. taxpayers’ money – to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system? Perhaps you are thinking of the First Amendment.


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.


I read absolutely NOTHING that forbids the use of government funds in promoting a religious belief system. Also keep in mind the word “religion” is a reference to Christianity in particular to the Founding Fathers. The big irony here is that the astute Leftist and atheist apology to the Founding Fathers were Christians is they were in fact Deists.


The apologists fail to tell the uninformed Deism greatly differed in America than the Deism in Europe. So what is a common definition for Deism?




1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).


2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. (


Deism does NOT deny the existence of God! Below is one of the best explanations I have read on the differences between American Deism and European Deism:


1. The Age of Reason was an English affair and should be severed from The Enlightenment, which was a later French affair, occurring at a different time with very differing results. The Age of Reason sought to reform religion, the secular Enlightenment sought to destroy it in total. That is what clearly differentiated the American Revolution from the blood-letting and violent French Revolution.


2. That preferred “deism” as defined today was that of the atheistic French Revolution, which set the stage for Humanism, Marxisn (sic), and endless ‘isms.’ The American was based on a Calvinist’ Protestant culture/ethics tempered and moderated by the philosophy of John Locke, a Unitarian. It was based on Freemasonry, which operated as an enlightened form of general monotheism uniting the many diverse religious sects of the American Colonies.


3. The idea was never to strip religion from the public sphere, but to preserve individual liberty. See On Separation of Religion and State. To further quote Jefferson to put this in context, I consider religion a supplement of law in the government of man. Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Foley 1900 (#7242).


4. That the Founders of America were not “deists” as defined Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Revolution and the French Enlightenment. The Deism of the French Revolution would be the ‘Watchmaker” god of Voltaire that went away after creation and had no further interaction with the world. This was part of the French humanist/atheist effort to de-Christianize French society and substitute Eastern mysticism and Greek/pagan philosophy. See the Cult of Reason and Robespierre.


5. That the American Founders never called themselves “Deists” and Jefferson and Adams considered themselves Unitarians and said so. They are better defined as Unitarians because they believed God was active in the world, divine punishment for evil, and an afterlife. See Existence of Deity/God by Thomas Jefferson (Exploring Deism Its Origins and History; by Lewis Loflin;


In context of these thoughts American Deists considered themselves Christians and European Deists were anti-Christian believers of limited religion as defined by a secularist and humanist thought. I would argue that more of our Founding Fathers were more Christian than Deist because of the expectation of a supernatural act of God in their prayers in winning the Revolutionary War; however that is not really the point. The point is the Founding Fathers had a Christian world view which included the practice of Christian Morality and Christian Values. The Founding Fathers’ writings in private and public demonstrate that Christianity and Reason are the foundation of their thoughts on the rule of law, i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.


Ergo it does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend that Christianity is the thought behind the First Amendment’s usage of the word “religion”. Since Christianity is meant by the word “religion” it should shed some light of the actual Founding Father meaning of the First Amendment religious clause:


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”


Congress cannot make a law to establish a Christian Church Denomination as the State Church AND Congress cannot interfere with the free exercise of Christianity. Government had NO PROBLEM with this until some Leftist found an ally in the Supreme Court to interpret the religious clause in the First Amendment differently than originally intended. The result was a 20th/21st century reevaluation of the term Separation of Church and State which is NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution. Hence the Judicial Branch embarked on lawmaking that Congress was expressly prohibited to exercise. AND the Judicial Branch usurped the Constitutional purpose of Congress to enact law by creating law extra-constitutionally.


In saying all this I thereby refute you Wilheru that the Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer money in the promotion of religion; however I agree the First Amendment says the government cannot use taxpayer money to discriminate against religion and Christianity in particular.


Wilheru says,What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.”


I half-way agree with you on this Wilheru. Government does not have the right to forbid abortion based on the New Testament (Hint: the Old and New Testament both forbid infanticide and some Christian Books considered pseudepigrapha [Barnabas 19:5; Apocalypse of Peter 25]  now but as part of the New Testament by the Early Church Fathers also wrote against baby killing which is what happens when one murders an unborn baby). However, since the Founding Fathers visualized Christian Morality and Christian values as important to the rule of law (yes along with the Greek and Roman classics), I believe it is a good guess they felt a human life was a Christian life. That human life would be entitled legal protection.


Wilheru says,You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.”


Actually the Founding Fathers’ consideration of Christian religion had more to do with religious freedom among the traditions of Christian Denominations. Enforced religious freedom did mean taking religious violence off the table; however European wars of religion had more to do with suzerainty of Princes than religious freedom. Protestant Princes that supported Lutheranism and/or Zwingli were Princes that opened themselves up to be invaded with the sanction of the Catholic Church by Catholic Princes to acquire territory. Europeans that fled Europe for religious freedom to the American colonies did so to escape persecution from nation State Churches and not because of foreign invasion.


Wilheru says,I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.” (Bold Emphasis Mine)


George Washington


“I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.”  June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.


Thomas Jefferson


“God who gave us life gave us liberty.  And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?  Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”  1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.


“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;  sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…”  April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.


“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”


“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus….I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”


James Madison (Known as the Father of the Constitution)


“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” June 20, 1785


“It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian.”  In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.


“We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address


“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]


There are more quotes – Check it out!


Yes Wilheru, it must be a faulty memory!


JRH 2/1/12

A Leftist’s Lips Move Followed by Lying Revisionism

America's Christian Foundation


John R. Houk

© January 14, 2012


I received a comment from an obvious Left Wing – the Constitution is a living document – and perhaps an atheist Doug Indeep relating to this post at SlantRight 2.0: “The Homosexual Classrooms Act is an Assault on the Constitution and Christianity”. I am certain Mr. Indeep is a pseudonym relating to “Dug in deep”. His profile page on Blogger releases little information about him except that he is a lawyer and resides on the Left Coast; i.e. California. As of this writing Indeep’s blog is empty which indicates he created a profile to use the wisdom of the Left to annoy the Right.


Indeep’s line of thinking in refuting The Homosexual Classrooms Act post is to proclaim the Constitution is the bedrock of the existence of Separation of Church and State and that David Barton’s scholarship of the Founding Fathers is revisionist history according to Chris Rodda herself a Leftist ideologue that chose to attack the credibility of Barton’s sources.


So this is what I am going to do. I am going to post Indeep’s comment here in its entirety followed by some of my thoughts which will be followed by a refutation of Christ Rodda.



The Homosexual Classrooms Act is an Assault on the Constitution and Christianity

Sodom and Gomorrah


John R. Houk

© December 21, 2011


Homosexual Activists are using the clout of MSM and Hollywood/TV propaganda to brainwash homosexuality is normal and acceptable in American culture. The Homosexual Activist lobby appears to be in the driver’s seat gaining huge support for a bill entitled Student Non-Discrimination Act. Eugene Delgaudio of Public Advocate correctly says [SlantRight Editor: Read Delgaudio at the end of this post at SlantRight 2.0] the bill should be labeled the Homosexual Classrooms Act.


The propagandized design for the Bill is to protect deviant homosexuals from discrimination in public schools. The nuts and bolts reality is the Bill forced feeds public school students to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal rather than the Biblical description as an abomination. Because of Judicial precedents utilizing a Left Wing secularist interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, Homosexual Activists are making sure public school students do not hear that Christian Biblical faith speaks of homosexuality as deviant sin against God.


Regardless of what atheists, Secular Humanists and Separation of Church-State morons will tell you, the United States of America has a Christian Foundation in its colonial beginnings and the foundation thoughts of the Founding Father’s including those Founders involved in writing the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.


[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)


Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. (Fisher Ames – Framer of the First Amendment; An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)


Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Charles Carroll of Carrollton – Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)


[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion. (Oliver Ellsworth – Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court; Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)


I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.


I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. (Benjamin Franklin – at Constitutional Convention; James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)


Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)


I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)


[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience. (James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution; Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)


The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (Benjamin Rush – Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)


By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 1:18] (Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)


While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support. (George Washington – Father of Our Country; The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)


Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?


And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (George Washington – Father of Our Country; Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)


Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. (James Wilson – Signer of the Constitution; The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)


The Above Quotes from WallBuilders


President James Madison was the primary framer and defender of making the Constitution the law of the land. Madison was huge on equal rights for all religions and all Christian denominations (or sects). Many a Secular Humanist will thus point out that Madison was big on separation of Church and State. AND in a many he was big on the Church-State separation; however not in the manner that activist Left Wing Judges have reinterpreted Original Intent. Madison wanted government to stay out of the religion business but fully expected Christianity to be an influence on the rule of law.


“Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.”  (James Madison, referring to the establishment of tax-supported denominations in Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117. [1st emphasis SlantRight – 2nd emphasis James Madison Quotes])


In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.


“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”  James Madison


We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth “that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. (— James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785 in response to an attempt to pass a law that would have instituted the anti-biblical practice of taxing the general population for the support of the church.  Note: The purpose of this bill was to try to help the Protestant Episcopal (Anglican) church with their financial problems.   Today, the same type of tax support has been accomplished quite handily by the Secular Humanist religion, and no James Madison was there to object and stop it from happening.  For more information on the history surrounding this, go here. [Emphasis SlantRight])


The Above Quotes from James Madison Quotes


Alexander Hamilton was also a supporter of the Constitution becoming the law of the land for the United States of America.


“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.” Alexander Hamilton


On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Alexander Hamilton


“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [Alexander Hamilton, 1787 after the Constitutional Convention]


“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.” Alexander Hamilton


Note: Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:


(1) Christianity


(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.


The Above Quotes from Alexander Hamilton Quotes


Anti-Christian and Separation Church-State apologists love to point out a significant number of the America’s Founding Fathers were Deists. Even if it is true that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, their Deism was quite different than the Deism practiced in Europe. Whatever acceptance or denial of the miraculous inherent in the Holy Bible, the Founding Fathers universally followed the Biblical Moral code. In following the Moral code of the Bible the practice of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle in America would horrify the Founding Fathers.


Only a foolish Secular Humanist or Separation of Church-State proponent would deny the strict adherence of the Founding Fathers to Biblical Morality. This is when those that demand that Christianity can have zero to do with the government because of Separation of Church and State will say something like the times are a changing. The U.S. Constitution is a living document don’t you know and thus the rule of law inherent in the Constitution changes according to the evolution of the mores of society.


Did the Founding Fathers view the Constitution as a living document?


On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.  —Thomas Jefferson


The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.  —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States


The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington


Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison


The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison


Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson


To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson (The Founders on a Living Constitution; By Jon Bruning and James Best; What Would The Founders Think?)


The Founding Fathers expected the Constitution to be interpreted with the Original Intent in which it was written. The only change to occur in the Constitution was via the Amendment process or another Constitutional Convention to write a new document to replace the last document.


This Living Constitution malarkey is an invention of the Left to validate a Socialistic-Secular Humanistic culture despising our Christian foundation to allow such deviancy as homosexuality to be valid and to have special protection from Christians that subscribe to Biblical Morality.


We Christians must rise up and be an influence on our government as the Founding Fathers Originally Intended!


JRH 12/21/11

Stick With the Founding Fathers Original Design

Founding Fathers sm

John R. Houk

© November 27, 2010


Here is an interesting American Thinker article with ideas to balance the economic ship USS Economy. In politics I am on board with the principles of balanced budgets, Free Market economics, Less Government, Less Taxes and so on. I am on board with these principles on faith more than knowledge. Frankly I am a Conservative more because of Social Conservatism, Pro-Family Values, Pro-Biblical Christian faith, a Conservative slant on First Amendment Rights, I am very Second Amendment (i.e. that of individuals to bear arms), the reinstitution of State Sovereignty according to the Tenth Amendment and so on.


When it comes to Conservative Economics or Tea Party Economics I am in a position of choosing who to trust in what is good for America. As a student of history I can read what the effect Liberal or Leftist Economics has accomplished to benefit people. That benefit is nonexistent.


Leftist Economics have the modern world’s greatest genocides into existence. The worst thing Right Wing Economics have done is exploitation of working class people by Big Business. By Big Business I mean organized markets that benefit companies and corporations more than or perhaps rather than the well-to-do that might employ them. This means in the early days of Big Business when the ruling elite of nations were most often European Noblemen or close offspring thereof, the common man was way more exploited economically and in Human Rights than what should have been morally unacceptable as members of Christian nations.


I suspect a few national revolutions changed this unequal existence between the upper class and the common man. Here are a few of those revolutions which are not exhaustive, but are from skimming the top of my humble mind:


The Magna Carter of 1215 and later revisions


Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”, literally “Great Paper”) was drawn up in 1215 to limit the power of English Monarchs, especially King John, from absolute rule.


Magna Carta was the result of disagreements between the Pope and King John and his barons over the rights of the king: Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.


Magna Carta is widely considered to be the first step in a long historical process leading to the rule of constitutional law, much of English Common Law can be traced back to Magna Carta.


The gist of the gripe the Barons had with King John was that he had too much power and they too little.


The Barons had the populace behind them, in as much as anyone took any notice of the populace.


The Glorious Revolution (1688-89)


The deal struck between Parliament and the royal couple in 1688-89 was that Parliament would support the war against France, while William and Mary would accept new constraints on their authority. The new constitution reflected the relative weakness of William’s bargaining position more than any strength in Parliament’s position. Parliament feared the return of James, but William very much needed England’s willing support in the war against France because the costs would be extraordinary and William would be focused on military command instead of political wrangling.


The initial constitutional settlement was worked out in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, and the Mutiny Act that collectively committed the monarchs to respect Parliament and Parliament’s laws. Fiscal power was settled over the 1690s as Parliament stopped granting the monarchs the authority to collect taxes for life. Instead, Parliament began regular re-authorization of all taxes, Parliament began to specify how new revenue authorizations could be spent, Parliament began to audit how revenue was spent, and Parliament diverted some funds entirely from the king’s control (Dickson 1967: 48-73). By the end of the war in 1697, the new fiscal powers of Parliament were largely in place.


American Revolutionary War (1775 – 83) and Formation of the USA


·       Many, many things caused the revolution. From the economic problems, to the discontent with autocratic rule.


·       Also, the colonies were not allowed their own economy to flourish, not letting the colonials print legal tender money which also in turn, since any monies printed was not considered by the King, it made it much harder to pay royal taxes. After the Boston Tea Party, came the Coercive Acts, or the Intolerable Acts on Boston, which really upset them and made them want to take even more action, rather than just using effigies (dolls made to look like the redcoats and used to scare the redcoat’s and boycotting.


·       Reasons for American Revolution: Taxation without representation in parliament. Colonials thought the English could not control colonies from so far away. (across the pond) Money, people like John Hancock did not want to pay taxes on his goods being brought into the docks or sent to England, import and export. (Some Wiki answers listed on


The objective of the constitution was to create a strong elected government that would be responsive to people’s will. Although many founding fathers believed that the new government had to be insulated from the will of the people. The constitutional features were included like the Electoral College and the election of the senate by state legislatures. (From: U.S. Constitution: A Short History)


… As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10).  The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities.


… In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.


James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a “parchment barrier.”  … Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison’s view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally–in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson–Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as “guardians” of  individual rights against the other branches. …


Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away.  It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce  liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon.  In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” …



In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson wrote, “There has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.”  George Washington agreed: “They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.” (Excerpted from: The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance)


The French Revolution took a different path of bringing balance between the common man and the upper class. That path was bloody and little to do with offering Liberty and more to do eliminating the French Nobility Class including the French Monarchy with death sentences to transform French society from a nation of an entitled ruling class to an egalitarian Republic. The difference between the Republic of the United States of America and the French Republic are that the rights of man applied to all classes (at least in theoretical law) in America while the rights of man in France were based on fear of the French Republic government rooting out French Nobles (i.e. outright despotism).


The American Thinker article mentioned at the beginning of this post has to do with utilizing the tools the Founding Fathers left as a heritage and legacy of regrouping in potential perilous times. There are three authors to this essay: Raymond Richman, Howard Richman, and Jesse Richman. They postulate utilizing tariffs as a means of America equalizing trade with nations that undercut American production with cheap labor producing less expensive products. Then they postulate eliminating corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes or Valued Added Taxes to encourage Corporations to keep their financial homes in America as well as foreign Corporations establishing American divisions in America. I’ll leave the details of these three author’s thoughts for you to read. The goal is to bring up employment in America which means an infusion of money into the economy which means economic growth.  


JRH 11/27/10

America’s Foundation is Christian, Yes Sir

One Nation Under God - Jesus lg

John R. Houk

© November 1, 2010


When you hear or read a Left Wing pundit or a MSM pundit tell you that America’s political Right is revising America’s history to proclaim a Christian foundation, KNOW that America does indeed have a Christian Foundation. When you are told that America’s Founding Fathers were not Christian but rather Deists, KNOW that it is the Left revising history by warping the truth.


You see it is true most of the Founding Fathers may have been described as a Deist. Yet the Deists in America were quite different from the Deists in Europe. Nearly all of the Founding Fathers – both traditional Christians and Deists – believed in the Truth of the Holy Bible. Indeed a more apt description of American Deists is the appellation of Christian Deists. Christian Deists differed from Christians in one doctrinal element. Christian Deists denied the occurrence of supernatural miracles could have scientifically occurred. Perhaps some Christian Deists believed in miracles but denied that supernatural acts occurred in the present. The one doctrinal element all Christians and Christian Deists agreed upon was the efficacy of Christian Morality as the standard bearer that makes a person good and thus makes a nation good.


Examine this essay from Marcello Pera and discover the true nature of America’s Foundation as intended by America’s Founding Fathers.


JRH 11/1/10