Tag Archives: John Adams

Bill Lockwood: Mixing Politics and Religion

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter to his wife Abigail in May, 1780, John Adams famously wrote:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

To John Adams the most important element of life was family. His continual service to the nation included that he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, an official Minister to England on behalf of the United States, and the second President of the United States. But this service he considered a “necessary evil” in order that he might enjoy pleasures of family and that his own future generations might enjoy the same.

In our modern era where warnings against “mixing politics and religion” are memorized and repeated without any real deep thought as to why or even what this means, Adams teaches us a few things about it. His keen mind was able to probe the issues of life and distill the principles and realities involved.

In analyzing what Adams meant when he said “I must study politics that my sons may have liberty to study …”, note the following.

What is Politics?

First, what is Politics? Politics simply means the management or administration of society. The word “politics’ is from the Greek word ‘politika’ meaning the “affairs of a city.” It is “the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group” (Wikepedia). Frequently the word “politics” is used negatively, such as in “play politics.” The root idea of the word, however, refers to principles by which people are to be governed.

The question now becomes, by what set of principles shall we govern society? Shall we use biblical principles or humanistic ones? Shall we use God-inspired principles upon which to base human laws, or shall we simply drift off into allowing people to do “what every man thinks is right in his own eyes?” The only issue in our society therefore is whether or not we plan to manage ourselves according to Christian principles.

This applies to a wide variety of social levels: the workplace, the office, the team, the church, or cities and nations; there is even “international politics.” All policies that are adopted in these various groups are called “public policies” precisely because those policies effect others. Once again, these policies will either reflect Christianity or humanism (non-religion).

These facts being so, whence comes the idea that Christian people should remain free from “politics?” Is it somehow inconsistent with biblical values that Christians should not influence public policy?

Freedom Politics is Pro-Family

Returning to Adams’ quote above, note that he was interested in freedom for his family. He wanted to construct a society along Christian principles that by this framework of freedom his family in future generations might continue to enjoy liberty. Specifically, limited government would allow personal freedom to flourish while at the same time curtail dictatorships or top-down controls that destroy freedom.

A sidebar note: Many confuse Roman Catholicism with New Testament Christianity. Not only were the colonists almost 95% Protestant in their belief-systems, but were afraid of Catholicism. The reason for this is clear. Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical political system that was constructed through the centuries to mimic Old World kingdoms such as the Roman. It too, therefore, is dictatorial and stifles freedom. Its record as a tyrannical power is matched only by other forms of government absolutisms.

Adams was well-aware of all of this. This is why that during the tumultuous formation of the United States he felt that he needed to invest time in order to create a political landscape such that allowed freedom to ring—but this was in order that his children might be able to enjoy more pleasurable pursuits. The political machinery of a nation is a direct reflection of religious values and presuppositions that underlie the society. For future family freedom, Christian politics was necessary.

Politics was not just one “hobby” that Adams chose among others he might have chosen, even though that is the casual way people view politics today. Adams showed this by couching it in his word “must.” In other words, politics was his “duty.” It functioned as an obligation. Political freedom is foundational to other freedoms.

To illustrate, Adams used “war.” Those who enjoy freedom and liberty rely on the sacrifices of untold thousands who study war and become warriors. A warriors’ occupation is not like playing sports, or collecting old cars or antiques. Without a fight for freedom, there would be no games to play or antiques to collect. Someone must do this business of war if we are to have pleasures of life. If we were all running for our lives from enemy soldiers, who cares about playing games?

So also is managing people by politics. It is foundational to freedom at large. For this reason, Cicero, the ancient Roman statesman at the time of Julius Caesar, observed: “For there is really no occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding states or preserving those already in existence.”

So exactly. Christians, being correctly informed, can change the character of the political landscape. By bringing the moral standards of Christ into the civic arena, society itself is transformed. The gospel of Christ not only changes lives and hearts of men, but the course of civil government. Why should Christians not be involved in politics?

Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?

Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?-“The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell.”

by Tom DeWeese

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/17/will-brett-kavanaugh-stand-for-property-rights/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism

The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism “…The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans…

by Bill Lockwood

Some suggest that biblical commands never enjoin one to be “patriotic” regarding America. Patriotism, it is supposed, is not commended in scripture; therefore, Christians need emphasize Americanism less.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of America and Americanism; specifically, the God-inspired freedoms which form our core. It is true that most peoples love their own country, the place of their nativity. And if that was all that is involved in American patriotism–love of the fatherland–then the criticism might be well-founded. But America is different. It is unique in the history of the world. And it is not simply that it is unique that ought to cause Christians to be patriotic—but due to the substance of that uniqueness. This substance makes it superior.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, gives us a clue to the singular character of our nation. America is the first time in history, he noted, since even the time of Adam and Eve, that humanity might be able to enjoy, by the framework of governing principles, the freedoms which come from God. He was reflecting upon the sad fact that all governments and nations throughout history curtail the liberty which can only come from God since these governments do not begin with the fundamental premise of the sacredness of human life.

More to the point, a statement drafted first in 1922 by the Committee for Constitutional Government and signed by such dignitaries as Herbert Hoover, Alfred E. Smith, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, Mrs. William H. Taft and others, recommended a study of the Constitution on the following grounds.

Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, ‘The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans.’ Next to the Bible, the best book on the Constitution should be in every home, school, library and parish hall.

Our republic is the direct outgrowth of Christianity. The founding generation understood exactly what they were doing. For the first time in recorded history biblical values were enshrined as the basis of a limited government called a republic in which individual freedom was based upon individual worth.

This is why founder Noah Webster admonished, “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion … and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” For the same reason Patrick Henry, a long time preacher, insisted that our nation was actually founded upon Jesus Christ. Strange sounds for modern ears.

Practically every founder which wrote on the subject agreed with Henry. Alexander Hamilton observed, for example, that “The law … dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”

Another signer of the Constitution, Rufus King, stated, “The … law established by the Creator … extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind….This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.”

None of the above is to say that pulpits ought to draw their texts from particular Articles of the Constitution upon which to preach; for they are to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).  But it is to say that a failure to recognize Christianity as the bulwark of our nation’s charter betrays a very limited understanding of America as well as the Bible. 

The very concepts of the sacredness of life, liberty, and private property—which the entire construct of the Constitution is designed to protect–are biblical in nature and are not traceable to any other source. The “transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic,” summarizes constitutionalist David Barton (Original Intent).

For this cause, Abraham Lincoln advised regarding the Constitution:

Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation, and, in particular, a reverence for the Constitution.

Again, it is education in the principles behind our founding charter which Lincoln was encouraging. The same is true for western culture as a whole. It is superior to other cultures precisely because of the undergirding concepts upon which it is based. As Herbert Schlossberg put it in Idols for Destruction,

Cultures are equal in value only if there is no standard against which to judge them. The culture of the West, infused as it is with Christian values, is superior to any other, and all the valid charges against the West are indications that it has betrayed its own heritage. It is not superior because it is wealthy; it is wealthy because it is superior, because it believes that work is a calling, that matter is important, that reason is a gift of God. This culture, God’s gift, transmits its material blessings along with its interpretation of reality.

America’s greatness is only assessed by the eternal standard of God’s Word. Alexis de Tocqueville is credited with this famous passage in which the Frenchman searched for the greatness of America. His answer was, “Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Ezra Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties).

It is not commendable that many modern pulpits cannot seem to recognize that when they preach on the sacredness of an individual life they are preaching God-given values which, because of the Bible, became the foundation of Americanism—a unique event in world history. Is this not worthy of Christian homage?

Or, when preachers “invite” sinners to obey the gospel (1 Pet. 4:17) they are celebrating the concept of liberty and free choice protected by our wise founders.  Does this protection not call forth our reverence? Or, when pleading for donations they are assuming that God has invested people with private property which they can dispose of at their own volition; and because the founders believed in these biblical principles they constructed a lawful system of protection to guard that property. Should we not pay homage to this system?

Patriotism runs much deeper than love of my birthplace or attachment to the language I speak. It glories in God’s grace that enabled our founders to infuse the ideals of God into the framework of society. No other nation has ever attempted such a project. American patriotism is in reality a loyal adhesion to Christian principles which were grafted into a governing system.

The red, white, and blue therefore, evoke deep feelings not merely because I was born here—but due to the fact that these colors represent the fundamental godly doctrines which my forefathers died to protect. Not all of them lived in accordance with these values—to be sure– but they believed in them.   

America is not merely exceptional. This means “better than average; not normal.” It is that. But it is also unique in that it is unequalled. It is superior. And this distinction lies in its reliance upon Christianity by which our nation was forged.

“Gotta Value Life”

“Gotta Value Life”- “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

by Bill Lockwood

One Congressman after another has been on television pleading for cessation of violence in the aftermath of the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise and members of the congressional police force. “The violence has got to stop.” This in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting in Alexandria, VA as James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois opened fire on the GOP baseball team as it practiced.

Hodgkinson is a solid socialist who, according to Smoking Gun, “posted a link to a Change.org petition in late March that included the notation that, ‘Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” On various Facebook posts Hodgkinson expressed his radical leftist views. He even belonged to one group called “Terminate the Republican Party.” Hodgkinson had come to kill as many Republicans as possible.

In a similar vein, little Jeffrey Laney of St. Louis posted a Facebook Live (see below) last week in which the 6-year-old expressed his fears in the 4-minute post. “People need to stop killing each other around here because this is just making me feel bad,” Jeffrey says in the video. “I’m really serious. I’m really scared to die, and I’m really scared for my family to die. I’m scared.” His mother commented that Americans “Gotta value life.”

As much as we all agree with the sentiment of little Laney and the Congressmen who cry for cessation of violence, it sadly appears that these incidents will not stop, but continue to escalate. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit (Matt. 7:17). Americans have been sowing to the wind and we are just beginning to reap the whirlwind.

Rejection of God

George Washington’s well-known statement of religion in government reads: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Washington recognized that “national morality could not prevail in exclusion of religious principles.” America, however, has purposefully, with malice aforethought, excluded Christian values.

God and His absolute moral standard was premeditatedly removed from the public sphere in the early 1960’s. The Bible was outlawed in public schools, public prayer to Almighty God has been forbidden, “God” has been effectively ejected from every classroom except the collegiate ones in which He is mocked. It has become a liability for students under the tutelage of humanistic and Marxist professors to mention God. Predictably, immorality has skyrocketed in every single category that is measurable. Liberalism has destroyed any ethical framework in which to live.

Consider: births to unwed teenage mothers continues to rise dramatically; violent behavior has far outdistanced population growth, even being glorified in the media; sexually transmitted diseases explode in growth; divorce has skyrocketed as American families have become an unrecognizable conglomerate instead of a godly unit; the American culture is the first in world history to officially recognize homosexual marriages; our populace devours its young through abortion; and children grow up without fathers in the home.

These are the fruits of a godless society. We cannot continue to instill godless Marxism into the hearts and minds of the next generation without expecting the people to act like the devil. Sooner or later people begin to live consistently with the concepts that have been taught.

John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence; One of Two Signers of the Bill of Rights; Second President of the United States, put it plainly: “We 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.”

Our beloved republic is in dire peril. More laws and increased availability to healthcare is not the answer. The problem is beyond fixing by mere memorized slogans and public pleadings. There is only one viable solution: A deep repentance and turning to God by the people of the American Republic. Without this we are doomed, for without God, there is no absolute value to life.

Rogue Government

Rogue Government- Was Donald Trump under surveillance during his presidential bid?”

by Bill Lockwood

As governments tend to grow in size they not only become unwieldy, but oppressive of the very freedoms they are framed to protect. For this reason, the Founders, knowing that the very nature of government is to expand its scope– for it is the nature of man to seek to rule over others, continually warned that the United States Government should remain small and limited at a national level. The powers granted to the Federal government were to remain “few and defined” (James Madison, The Federalist).

Thomas Jefferson reminded us: “Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself.”

Further, he explained, “It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”

Jefferson then asked, “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun?” The answer: “The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.” We might add “so also the American Republic.”

The latest “surveillance” revelations apparently made by the Obama Administration on presidential candidate should warn thoughtful citizens that governments that are large enough to take care of you are too large.

Surveillance?

Was Donald Trump under surveillance during his presidential bid? Trump himself tweeted that he was and that Trump Tower had been “wiretapped.” This caused a major explosion among the press as well as members of Congress, Republican and Democrat. Various members of Congress began to investigate.

On Wednesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed in a press conference that “US citizens involved in the Trump transition team” were “incidentally” surveilled by the Obama administration. Nunes stated that what his Congressional committee discovered “has nothing to do with Russia,” but “everything to do with possible surveillance activities, and the president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out there …”

Politico reported it this way, “Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during the Obama administration.”

The Daily Wire ran a piece this week which downplayed the significance of the above facts. “And no, nothing Nunes said changed the underlying facts: Team Trump got caught up in incidental collection of information. That’s not the same thing as accusing the intelligence community of violation law in order to target Trump and company.”

Really? Consider the following.

First, The Washington Times reminded us on Monday that according to an NPR report on May 2013 “The Associated Press is protesting what it calls a massive and unprecedented intrusion into its gathering of news. The target of that wrath is the U.S. Justice Department, which secretly collected phone records for several AP reporters last year.” This occurred under Eric Holder’s leadership at the Dept. of Justice. Mass surveillance upon citizens was apparently in the Obama playbook.

Second, the Obama Administration made more than one attempt to get an official government surveillance on presidential nominee Donald Trump. Obama even had the proposed process “converted” in a “national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)” (National Review). The FISA application by Obama was denied. Yet, Obama tried a second time. This again shows Obama was in the spying business, more concerned about potential Republican nominees to the White House than real foreign dangers. The FISA court evidently agreed with that assessment.

Third, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward warned this week that there are persons from the Obama administration who could possibly face criminal charges. The reason is that these individuals illegally “unmasked” the names of the Trump transition team that were in these “incidental” surveillance reports of foreign officials (The Washington Examiner). These names were then illegally passed around by the Obama Administration. This directly answers the Daily Wire claim which said that there was “no violation of law” in incidental surveillance. This is a smoking gun.

As the Examiner reports: Trump and members of his transition team had their identities “unmasked” after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials. “The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain ‘masked’ if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals.”

In conclusion, instead of encouraging everyone to remain calm, as The Daily Wire has done, because there are no apparent “violations of law” in what occurred regarding wire-taps, perhaps it is time the American people awakened to the fact that there is plenty of evidence here to warrant grave concern that our own government has become rogue-enough to spy on its own people with intent to harm.

The real cause of all of this is in the size and scope of the government which we have allowed to grow into unconstitutional mammoth proportions. And this under the siren song that the government can better care for us than we ourselves can. The real issue here is freedom. Will we as a people be able to control our own government or has it grown to such an extent that it now controls us?

John Adams of the Founding generation stated in a letter to his wife in 1775, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” Ominous words these.

Divine Science Part 2: Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Divine Science Part 2: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics- “Christianity is neither a scientific system, nor a philosophy, it has yet a world view of its own… ”

by Bill Lockwood

John Adams was not the only Founding Father to classify the realm of politics as “Divine Science.” Another signer of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, James Wilson, explains to the modern generation why it is that Christians should be interested in the political sphere.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other….All [laws], however, may be arranged into d=tow different classes. 1) Divine; 2) Human….But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God….Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that which is Divine.”

Wilson was of Scottish descent who attended universities in Glasgow, St. Andrews, and Edinburgh before immigrating to America at the age of 21. He studied law under John Dickinson, another signer of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson served as the original justice of the Supreme Court.
Religion and Law: Twin Sisters

It is clear from Wilson’s writing, that his view of Christianity and the Bible would be greatly shocked to hear modern-day Bible students opine that the doctrine of salvation has nothing to do with any view of man or government. Quite the opposite is the case. There are only two systems of laws. God-based or Man-based. A third alternative does not exist.

One has only to ask the question: Whence arises the rights of man? From God or man? Right to life, property and liberty do not stem from a human-oriented worldview wherein man alone determines what is right and what is wrong. Misguided are masses of Christians at this point which believe that religion and law are on two separate planes and never intersect.

From the vantage point of a God-centered worldview, Wilson notes: “All men are by nature equal and free. No one has a right to any authority over another without his consent. All lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it. Such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the happiness of the governed above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature. The consequence is that the happiness of the society is the first law of every government.”

If the above be true, it naturally follows that no governing authority has the right to remove the labor or property of one person and give it to another. On an individual basis, this is slavery. On a society basis, this is socialism. Both systems are built on beliefs that contradict both Divine and Natural Law.

The socialistic principles that govern much legislation today is as antagonistic to a God-centered worldview as is slavery. Just as well argue that the issue of slavery is off-limits Christian thinkers on the grounds that it is an “economic theory” of government and Christians should have nothing to do with economics. Socialism is nothing more than slavery at a civic level.

An Entire Worldview

All political systems flow logically from a particular worldview. The great theologian James Orr (1844-1913) when discussing the worldview of evolution, observed the following in his The Christian View of God and the World, “What now, it may be asked, has Christianity to do with theories, and questions, and speculations of this sort? [evolutionary concepts] As a doctrine of salvation, perhaps, not much, but in its logical presuppositions and consequences a great deal indeed.

Christianity, it is granted, is not a scientific system, though, if its views of the world be true, it must be reconcilable with all that is certain and established in the results of science…. Christianity is neither a scientific system, nor a philosophy, it has yet a world view of its own, to which it stands committed, alike by its fundamental postulate of a personal, holy, self-revealing God, and by its content as a religion of Redemption—which, therefore, necessarily brings it into comparison with [other] worldviews…” (p. 8).

Earlier he noted, “He who with his whole heart believes in Jesus as the Son of God is thereby committed to much else besides. He is committed to a view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of Redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, to a view of human destiny, found only in Christianity” (p. 4).

Christianity is much more than a doctrine of the salvation of mankind. It is an all-encompassing conception of the world that includes a doctrine of mankind. Logical consequences proceed from it, including the nature of man and how he is to be governed. It incorporates an entire worldview that is entirely in contrast to philosophical opinions such as anarchism or economic theories of man’s development such as socialism, Nazism, communism, fascism or philosophical speculations such as the general theory of evolution posing as science.

With the same vigor a Christian must stir to oppose evolution or communistic philosophy or slavery is the same sturdiness which must withstand a socialistic system. Christians who shy from these tasks are not viewing it in a correct light.

Much of America’s current woes stem directly from either non-involvement by Christian people who have deserted the field to atheists, humanists and the like; or to the swallowing of the false doctrine which supposes that socialistic redistribution is somehow taught in the Bible. One has only to peruse the National Council of Churches website to witness how this lie has corroded pure biblical truth.

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics- Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. ”

by Bill Lockwood

Multitudes of Christians seem to be far too-short sighted when it comes to understanding the implications of their own faith. Especially is this the case regarding how the principles of God work themselves out in the affairs of men. For example, biblical teaching of God’s creation eliminates any compromise with evolutionary theories that dominate the educational system. Not only are there bold contradictions between them, but both creationism and evolutionary theory are expressions of an entire world view. There are also principles involved in each which are at cross-purposes with the other.

Yet, many there are who name the name of Christ but also wish to honor the name of Charles Darwin. Sad is the state of the complacent Christian mind that does not recognize the disconnect and even contradiction between these or thinks it not substantial enough to “give answer” to designed assaults against its worldview (see 2 Pet. 3:15).

Exactly so pertaining governing concepts or the polity in a society. Too many Christians have been fooled so as to consider the realm of politics to be divorced from any religious or biblical principle. “These are two different realms and never the twain shall meet,” seems to be the motto. The exact opposite is the case. As Founding Father John Adams instructed, “The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.”  Adams recognized the plain simple fact that there are only two basic worldviews. One, theism; Two, atheism.

In spite of the many subsets that may be offered of the two basic worldviews– whether pagan, polytheism, socialism, fascism, communism—all fall neatly into two categories; Theism or Atheism. Every form of governance, be it the United Nations or the United States of America, or any other political organization, is an offspring of one of these two philosophies. Governments are the outworking of principles that flow from a God-centered worldview or a Naturalistic worldview.

Divine Science of Politics

The above is the very reason why a host of the founding generation sacrificed their fortunes to serve in politics. John Adams even described “politics” by the well-known phrase divine science. “Politics are the divine science, after all. How is it possible that any man should ever think of making it subservient to his own little passions and private interests? Ye baseborn sons of fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers? Yet the divine science of politics is at length in Europe reduced to a mechanical system composed of these materials.”

Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. It involves whether or not God has bestowed upon man certain rights and whether or not we are enabled by God Almighty to construct any formulation government to protect those rights based upon those principles. This alone explains why Adams thusly wrote, “What is to become of an independent statesman, one who will bow the knee to no idol, who will worship nothing as a divinity but truth, virtue, and his country? I will tell you; he will be regarded more by posterity than those who worship hounds and horses; and although he will not make his own fortune, he will make the fortune of his country.”

What Adams realized, and what is surprisingly so lacking today in the churches and pulpits, is a cross-examination of the basic principles behind prevailing winds of political doctrine.

Illustrations

The American Revolution. As illustrative of these basic concepts one might consider the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. John Quincy Adams explains that they were “actuated upon very different principles” (Forward to Frederick Gentz; The American and French Revolutions Compared, iv). Our American “principles of religious liberty did not result of indiscriminate contempt of all religion whatever.”

“The essential difference between these two great events, in their rise, their progress, and their termination, is here shown in various lights … A modern philosopher may contend that the sheriff, who executes a criminal, and a highwayman, who murders a traveler, act upon the same principles; the plain sense of mankind will see the difference between them …”

Either Christian principles are at work in society or not. The French Revolution proved, at least in France, they were not. The American Revolution ended in a very different place, precisely because of differing principles.

Communism. Writing with reference to the worldviews of Communism versus Christianity, Lester DeKoster observes, “The American Declaration of Independence is the last significant political document which attributed human freedom to a superhuman force. Its immediate successor, the French Declaration of the Rights of Men, its title betraying already the shift of emphasis, ignores the Creator; and fifty years later, the Communist Manifesto sneers at Him” (Communism and Christian Faith).

Like it or not, both communism and socialism are the out-workings of religious principles. For a modern counterpart to the French Declaration one might peruse the United Nations’ Declaration of Rights and be enlightened on the very different principles that inspired America.

Socialism. The philosophy of socialism is a competing worldview with Christianity. In the Encyclopedia of Religion Vergilius Ferm writes, “American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue and the given faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia …this is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine” (720).

Socialism is “an anti-Christian doctrine.” It is a matter of no little concern that hardened atheists such as Karl Marx, who popularized a socialist state through The Communist Manifesto, readily recognized that his mandates for government were a direct thrust against the God of the Bible. Materialistic philosophy was a bold and direct repudiation of a God-centered and biblical worldview and so it continues today.

For the same reason the early 20th century Swiss socialist-theologian Karl Barth came to a crisis point in his faith. Having bound himself to the eternal “progress” of man, he had a re-thinking in the wake of World War I. Either man was continuing onward and upward in an evolutionary trajectory as taught by his utopian socialism; or man was a creature made in God’s image whose fallen state demanded governing principles of a different sort. It was all about religion.

What a person believes about mankind, about the future, and about God, has everything to do with how he will behave in the present. That includes what kind of governing principles we will own upon which to operate a society. Call it politics or civic society or whatever, but the administrative concepts which govern decisions at a local and national level are religious in nature. If Christians remain unaware of the implications of their own belief-system, little shall we expect them to “give an answer” to the political assaults that arise from atheistic socialism. Even Donald Trump cannot change this.

Founding Fathers Supported Islam?

Founding Fathers Supported Islam?

by Bill Lockwood

President Obama has jumped the gun. He had hoped that by now his Common Core education standards would have already dumbed-down Americans to the point that they know nothing of our own history nor would they be able to read the Koran for themselves. So he lectured America this week from a Baltimore mosque that “Islam has always been a part of America.”

Visiting the Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, Obama eagerly assured Muslims that the dramatic rise in Islamic bloody terror against Christians and non-Muslims around the world should not in turn cause suspicion of Islam. Anti-Muslim bias and ill-feeling must be denounced, regardless of how much infidel blood flows at the hands of Muslims.

Within his remarks Obama showed what purposeful brainwashing can do to a mind. To support his thesis that Islam has always been woven into the fabric of America he pointed out (1) That the religion of many African slaves brought to America in the 17th century was Islam; (2) That Thomas Jefferson wanted the “Islamic” religion to be protected as was other religions, and; (3) That Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran. It is difficult to believe that any person considers these sophomoric suggestions as proof that somehow “Islam has been woven into the fabric of America from the beginning,” let alone a president who was supposedly Harvard-trained. Stunning.

Regarding Jefferson’s view of Islam, consider that even Columbia-degreed Denise Spellberg, author of Thomas Jefferson and the Quran: Islam and the Founders, reminds us that the Founders believed both Catholicism and Islam were violent religions and that Jefferson himself had a “personal disdain” for Islam. Jefferson knew from his experience as Minister to France that Islam was spread by the sword.

In spite of his disdain, Jefferson urged “toleration” toward individual Muslims who may be in America. However, to equate this toleration to “Muslims being a part of the fabric” or “founding” of America insults intelligence. Further, that Jefferson and Adams owned a copy of the Koran does not mean they appreciated any of Muhammed’s teachings any more than owning a copy of Dreams From My Father means anyone likes the content.

Perhaps Obama, while he is on Thomas Jefferson—who launched America’s first war against Muslim Barbary Coast Pirates–will announce to the public what Jefferson himself reported to John Jay and to the Congress regarding Islam. He learned it directly from the Tripoli Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. The ambassador answered us that [the right of piracy] was founded upon on the laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Other Founders

What exactly did the Founders of America think of Islam? Not only did they eschew it, but were outspoken that CHRISTIANITY is the great basis upon our free republic rests. That the liberty to even be in America while believing Muhammad’s Koran is traceable solely to Christian concepts of freedom—it certainly does not work the other way around.

The Father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, “Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.” Story went on to point out that not only did the Founders as a whole wish Christianity to receive “encouragement” from the state, but that the real object of the First Amendment “was not to countenance, much less advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity …”

James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, made the same point in 1788. But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices … But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

Samuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, suggested that if Muslims ever became officials of the United States that it would be “an unfortunate” event and could only happen if people laid aside the Christian religion altogether. He likened this, as did other Founders, to having elected officials who were devoid of religion completely. Similar quotations could be multiplied many times over. The Founding generation, far from remotely supposing that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of our nation, disdained it as a violent religion.

Obama’s reminder that some of the African slaves brought to America is likely the truth. What he refuses to acknowledge, however, is that not one of those African slave came to America without the complicity of Muslim slave traders on the African continent. The Koran not only endorses slavery, but Muhammed himself, the epitome of what a Muslim should be, personally owned black slaves.

It is beyond sad to witness the occupant of the Oval Office so stultify his intelligence by re-writing history. But it is a forecast of what his Common Core standards have in mind for all students.

Back to Homepage