Categories
Children Christianity/Religion Social

Our Judeo/Christian Values In Profound Danger

The May 21st post of Issues and Insights is of such concern that I have copied it here in its entirety–as follows:

__________________________

"Education: In our brave new schools, Johnny can't say the pledge, but he can recite the Quran. Yup, the same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.

In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:

Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."

Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."

Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.

Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."

Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Parents of seventh-graders, who after 9-11 were taught the pro-Islamic lessons as part of California's world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment. They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam.

But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told them in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture."

So the parents appealed. Unfortunately, the most left-wing court in the land got their case. The 9th Circuit, which previously ruled in favor of an atheist who filed suit against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, upheld the lower court ruling.

The decision is a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who've never met a culture or religion they didn't like — with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity. They are legally in the clear to indoctrinate kids into the "peaceful" and "tolerant" religion of Islam, while continuing to denigrate Judeo-Christian values.

In the California course on world religions, Christianity is not presented equally. It's covered in just two days and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities. But kids do get a good dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other peoples. In contrast, Islam gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," and not holy war.

The ed consultant's name is Susan L. Douglass. No, she's not a Christian scholar. She's a devout Muslim activist on the Saudi government payroll, according to an investigation by Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington." He found that for years Douglass taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy just outside Washington, D.C. Her husband still teaches there.

So what? By infiltrating our public school system, the Saudis hope to make Islam more widely accepted while converting impressionable American youth to their radical cause. Recall that John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," was a product of the California school system. What's next, field trips to Mecca?

This case is critical not just to our culture but our national security. It should be brought before the Supreme Court, which has outlawed prayer in school. Let's see what it says about practicing Islam in class. It will be a good test for the bench's two new conservative justices."
_____________________

Sometimes, I feel as though my beloved United States has become a foreign country; a country whose principles and culture I no longer understand. For our schools to prohibit prayer and the teaching of Judeo/Christian values, and yet have Islam and even Jihad presented in a sterling light is incomprehensible to me.

Post Script: I now remind myself of yesterday's post, and again take pleasure and gather strength from the knowledge of righteous people in this world.

Tags: Judeo/Christian, Judeo/Christian+values, public+schools, Quran, jihad, under+God, 9th+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals, prayer+in+schools, Islam, unconstitutional,

 


By Shirley Buxton

Still full of life and ready to be on the move, Shirley at 81 years old feels blessed to have lots of energy and to be full of optimism. She was married to Jerry for 64 years, and grieves yet at his death in August of 2019. They have 4 children, 13 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren...all beautiful and highly intelligent--of course. :)

51 replies on “Our Judeo/Christian Values In Profound Danger”

We, the American people, have allowed the government to assume advisory authority over our religion. First, by letting it pass a law in 1865 to assume advisory authority over our opinions and sentiments and manner and methods of discharging our duty to “trust in God.” Second, in 1954, we let the government assume advisory authorty over our duty to be “under God.”

With that “advsory power”, the government is now authorized to recommend to the people, any religion it wants to. In this case, it has chosen to recommend Islam over Christianity.

Too bad suckers!!!! You should have listened to the wise words of James Madsion.

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

–James Madison (1785) Memorial and Remonstrance

“Who does not see that the same civil authority which can recommend Christianity, may recommend Islam with the same ease.”

–Fred Flash (2006)

The government now has advisory power over religion and it is just a matter of determining who is going to get to exercise that power.

–Fred Flash (2006)

Like

Thank you for coming here and for your comments. I believe I am in full accord with your thinking, but I need to be clear on your definition of nationalized. My understanding is that nationalization reflects the cultures and ideals of that particular nation. This to my mind would be a good thing.

Help me here.

Shirley

Like

We could take all of this as a matter of Somantics or Rhetoric or both but what we need to get serious about is the fact that our country is being insidiously Nationalized. When we set about to change our laws,customs, and rules to suit other nations, we are in trouble.

Like

“My bet is that Kappa would support all of these—- SO…
In for a penny, in for a pound—right Kip?????

Wrong, Gaelic.

“Your views, as attested to by your anti religious, anti Christian diatribes can quite convincingly be used to “infer” the conclusion that you would support other ACLU causes.”

And if you’re reading anti-Christian diatribes in what I’ve written, that would only seem to confirm my original diagnosis of the mindset of certain individuals.

Crucial to the spirit of Jefferson’s letter are the words, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,”

The point, with regard to public schools (as per the original article that Shirely posted), is that such institutions cater to people from a wide variety of different religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
Who are all, “of The People”.
The article quibbled (not to put to fine a point on it) about school children not being allowed to recite the Pledge on a daily basis, yet that a history lesson had been given which included a one-off section on the religion of Islam.

Now personally, I see a considerable difference between a history lesson (albeit one that may have been a little over the top) and a bunch of kids from many different backgrounds being put into the position where they’re obliged to parrot, on a daily basis, some pledge originally written by a Christian Socialist, who, even according to one of your own posters, would, if he were alive today, not likely approve of it in its present form. For the Pledge to be recited in public schools would, IMO, be to violate the constitutional right of free speech.

I completely agree that Jefferson had no problem with *voluntary* prayer or the invocation of God’s name – but, “as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,”
That’s to the point. The Pledge has become Christianized, and consequently to use it in schools would be to run counter to the spirit of secularism that animates Jefferson’s letter.

Regarding Deism, in the 18th century, many folk were both Deists and Christians at the same time. They didn’t feel it as contradictory. It was a way of understanding the great changes that were taking place in the world. Many bishops, priests, and serious lay people had a Deist sensibility, preferring philosophical language in religion.
Deism in practice wasn’t exactly a creed, with defined propositions you either accepted or rejected. It was more like a “movement” of feeling, a sensibiilty which had taken root as a reaction to the growing evangelical fervour which made its appearance in the eighteenth century. It emphasized morality, finding its advocates among upper-class Americans who’d enjoyed the priviliges of a broad cultural education. As a style it reached across confessional lines, linking up to new discoveries in science. The dividing line between Deists and Christians is that Deists don’t accept that God intervenes in history on one side or the other. Their idea of God is more remote and impersonal than that.
Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” letter was intended to protect freedom of religious choice rather than threaten it. This was the result of lessons hard learned from the experiences of many of the early colonizers who, faced with persecution in Europe, had refused to compromise their religious convictions and fled the continent.

Further to what Gaelic said re. what I said,
Me – “Unlike some people who take themselves SO seriously that they persist, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, in such erroneous beliefs as the Constitution is a explicitly Christian and not a secular document …… frankly I take that interpretation over that of yourself and your friends any day.”
Gaelic – “From the way I read the comments, I did not see any claim that stated that”

Perhaps not explict. My bad. Though it would seem from the fact that the contention that the Constitution is a essentially a ‘secular’ document is so vehemently refuted, that the general opinion here is that quite the opposite is true.
Just an inference, of course 😉

And talking of inferences, it’s certainly the case that. on the basis of my opinions, some bizarre inferences (well, assumptions, really) have been made. Assumptions that, if they are to be taken seriously, indicate there’s something very weird going on in the skulls of certain individuals.
Namely, that I:
1) am anti-Christian
2) am a member of the ACLU
3) support child pornography
4) support the elimination of God from all aspects of society
5) don’t believe the Christian values had anything to do with the founding of America
6) Believe Christianity is nothing more than supersition,and that of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.
And that’s not all. The list goes on ……..

Well, knock me down wiv a fevver.
What purple prose and fevered imagination.

Gaelic wrote, ” Secular” means “worldly”, rather than spiritual.”
“Secular” also means not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body. It is in that sense that I use it.
“Secular” may also mean relating to or advocating, secularism.

Gaelic said ” Nowhere has anyone made the claim that the Constitution is a “spiritual” document. These views are very different from the way you have characterized them.”
And nowhere have I claimed that that religion and religious values did not influence the way in which the Constitution was formulated. I have never believed they didn’t ‘inform’.
But there’s no gainsaying what was happening in the eighteenth century. Christianity was being influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment. It was not immune.
Which is why I use the word ‘secular’ (as in ‘not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body’ ) in the context of this discussion.

Gaelic said, “It’s highly recommended that you go to the Library Of Congress link that Kip provided so you can read these excerpts in their proper context.”
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

Now, now. Casting aspersions, Gaelic.
I haven’t taken them out of context.
That’s why I provided the link. Duh!

Like

Credit To Kippa:
“For instance that, in 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Exact wording:
“Article 11. 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” (p. 365).

Calrification:
It is critical to emphasize that the question “Was the U.S. founded as a Christian nation?” is entirely different from the question “Were a majority of Americans in 1789 Christians?” The answer to this latter question is yes, and so it would naturally be expected that Christianity would be practiced by a majority of Americans, and their corresponding elected officials, through things like church attendance, declaring and observing religious holidays, praying, etc. BUT (and this is critical) to found a nation on a religion requires MUCH more than the fact that a majority of the public and its officials practices a particular religion and is accommodated accordingly by the government. To found a nation on a religion means that a particular religion is the primary, and probably sole, basis upon which the national government exists and is structured.

Good show!!!

Like

In Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists
He thanks Ephraim Robbins & Stephen S. Nelson for their letter and reassures them that he is still faithful to his duties… “Faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents” (which included the Danbury Baptists)…. He guarantees them that he will continue to support the wishes of the American people (and his constituents) and will defend against those who would prohibit the free exercise of religion. “Be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine…” He said,” I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.” In other words, he didn’t want the President or the congress mandating(forcing) public religious devotions (like the King of England did as the head of the Church of England) but had no problem with voluntary prayer.

Finally he ends the letter with this great salutation to the Danbuey Baptists:

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Jefferson appreciated the Danbury’s prayer on his behalf and would return the favor by praying for them . He prayed for their protection & blessing from God.

This seems to refute rather than support Kip’s argument..

It’s highly recommended that you go to the Library Of Congress link that Kip provided so you can read these excerpts in their proper context.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

Like

To view another debate similar to that of Kippa and Awakened Warrior check out this link:

http://home.aol.com/EndTheWall/washington.htm

WISDOM OF THE AGES

Psalm 107:17
Some became fools through their rebellious ways and suffered affliction because of their iniquities

Proverbs 13:20
He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.

Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways,but the folly of fools is deception.

Proverbs 1:22 “How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 14:9 Fools mock at making amends for sin,but goodwill is found among the upright.

Proverbs 10:18 He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.

Proverbs 12:11 He who works his land will have abundant food,but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.

Matthew 7:26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

Like

.

You’re barking up the wrong gum tree Kippa:

You said:
“Unlike some people who take themselves SO seriously that they persist, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, in such erroneous beliefs as the Constitution is a explicitly Christian and not a secular document …… frankly I take that interpretation over that of yourself and your friends any day.”

From the way I read the comments, I did not see any claim that stated that
The Constitution was an explicitly Christian document or a denial that it’s a secular document. Nor did I see any claim that you said the Constitution expresses anti-Christian bias. I did see the proper point made that although the framers did not want a Theocracy and did not want the clergy to pick the President or influence policy, they were religious men and did believe that religious values should influence the Government. (Key word here is values) Also, that these values influence the government through the vote of the people. Secular means “worldly”, rather than spiritual. Nowhere has anyone made the claim that the Constitution is a “spiritual” document. These views are very different from the way you have characterized them.

You said:
“It’s actually far more amusing that I’m supposedly a member of the ACLU. Now that’s REALLY funny.”

To That it can be said:
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

Your views, as attested to by your anti religious, anti Christian diatribes can quite convincingly be used to “infer” the conclusion that you would support other ACLU causes. So that is not a “fantastic leap” at all, nor is it “twisted paranoid logic”.
Here are some examples of ACLU views:

1) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY
Vs City of New Jersey
Concerns the constitutionality of two Jersey City “holiday” displays. The first, which featured a menorah and a Christmas tree,that were annually placed in front of City hall for decades. The ACLU wanted them removed.

2) Federal Judge Rules Against School-Mandated Prayer at Kentucky High School Graduation Ceremony (05/19/2006)
LOUISVILLE, KY – The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky announced today that U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Russell County High School from including prayer during its graduation ceremony tonight.

3) ACLU of Ohio Demands Schools Stop Teaching Intelligent Design as Science (02/14/2006)
TOLEDO, OH — The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio today sent a letter to the Toledo Public Schools demanding that they cease allowing staff to teach intelligent design in science classrooms throughout the district.

4) ACLU Hails Historic Ruling in Dover, Pennsylvania “Intelligent Design” Case (12/20/2005)
HARRISBURG, PA – “Intelligent design” is a particular religious belief, not a valid scientific theory, and teaching it in public school science classrooms violates the Constitution, according to Judge John E. Jones III’s ruling today in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

My bet is that Kappa would support all of these—- SO…
In for a penny, in for a pound—right Kip?????

Gaiscíoch Faoi Chúram Déanta Na Fírinne

Like

Well, it has been an exciting day around here while I have been gone. It will take me some time to read and digest all this material.

Thank you for having this discussion on my blog. It may sound trite to say so, but I greatly value our liberty to freely have such discussions.

God’s blessings on all.

PS Such a shame, though. I wrote a charming essay for today’s post, which has elicited very little interest 😦 This post, though, written many days ago, because of your invigorating conversation, had 91 views today alone.

Onward!

Like

It’s actually far more amusing that I’m supposedly a member of the ACLU. Now that’s REALLY funny.
But you know, Ric, you’re right. I don’t take myself too seriously. However, unlike some people who take themselves SO seriously that they persist, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, in such erroneous beliefs as the Constitution is a explicitly Christian and not a secular document, I do take history seriously.
For instance that, in 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

I make no claim that the Constitution expresses an anti-Christian bias ( do not believe it does), simply that it reflects the Founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of belief or unbelief.
Further evidence of such intention can clearly be read in Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation letter” :

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: “confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that.” These lines he crossed out and then wrote: “concurring with”; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: “Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience”; next he crossed out these words and wrote: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

And frankly, I’d take Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation over that of yourself and your friends any day.

Like

Very Good KIPPA..right now I’m bustin’ out laughing..that is very funny!!!!
coe·la·canth=Any of various mostly extinct fishes of the order Coelacanthiformes, known only in fossil form
It’s good to see that you don’t take yourself too seriously… I mean my gosh, I’m sure no one else does!!

Like

How dare you mock my nom de pong, biped.
The Herrings come from a very old and distinguished family, one that goes way back to before the coelocanth.
Kippa is, of course, the feminized form of Kipper.
Unless it’s a yarmulke, that is.

And remember. What’s a bad smell to one may be a heavenly odour to another.

Like

KIPPA–
The Old English origin of the word has various parallels, such as Icelandic kippa which means “to pull, snatch” and the Danish word kippen which means “to seize, to snatch”.
HERRING:
As in “red Herring” Figuratively, a red herring is a false lead in a mystery. In this context, red means smoked, and a smoked herring has such a strong smell that it can be used to create a false scent that causes hunting dogs to lose a track.

So Kippa Herring then is a great nom de plume for someone who sees themselves as snatching or pulling away a strong but false belief that causes other people to loose their senses.

But I just think Kippa Herring is just a bad smelling smoked fish..period!!!

Like

The below is a matter of record:
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
Dr. Abercrombie’s remark to Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.” This too is a matter of record.

As is Jefferson’s letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
And to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
Adam’s admission to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820 that “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.” (Protestant Calvanist), is also a matter of record, as is, (in his“Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788]) “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” (and if that isn’t a defense of secularism in government, I don’t know what is)
“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

Madison, in his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” says, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

Franklin, in his *autobigraphy* which, incidentaly, was not ghost-written by Tommy Paine or anyone else for that matter, wrote “My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist.” In his essay on “Toleration,” he
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.”
Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
“It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers” (Priestley’s Autobiography)

To argue that the politial system of the United States political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution, would requite far more in the way of evidence than you have been able to supply.
Not one of your citations provide evidence about the individual beliefs of the persons who wrote them.
They reprove Paine for being less than circumspect (“unleashing the tiger”), and disrespectful of the Christian religion. They were afraid that his radical opinions would offend and incite the people. No more than that.

Deists did not disbelieve in God. That’s where you are up a gum tree.
Although, indeed, many of America’s colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, the most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced the Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton’s mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning.

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own consciences. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects the founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief.
It is absurd to suppose that the Constitution expressed a moral view.
There is no evidence to support that. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and nor were there any impassioned declarations of Christian piety.

Well, I must be off to take my pornograph to the repair shop.
It seems to have worn out, possibly from over-use.
OTOH, perhaps It would be cheaper to trade it in and get a completely new one. New parts are so expensive these days, especially when they have to be ordered from decadent old Europe.

Like

The belief that the Founding Fathers were “Deists,” is primarily due to the writing of Thomas Paine in the “Age of Reason” which stipulates a belief in the unmoved mover of Aristotle, but not the God of the Old and New Testaments. Thomas Paine is sometimes grouped mistakenly with the Founding Fathers. He was in fact a deist.
He said:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”
“How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.”
What did the founding fathers have to say to Thomas Paine before the publication of “Age of Reason”?

“”the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . Think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship””
Benjamin Franklin
Keep in mind that those on all sides of the religion question would concede Franklin to be one of the least religious Founders.

“ “When I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?””
Samuel Adams

“”The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will. Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”
John Adams

“The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite….And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System”
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious.”
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion.”
John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith.”
John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution.”
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation — a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work;
He wrote:
“I therefore determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions — not knowing that “they are the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16].”

Like

Now, now, now Kippie…play nice
“Only goes to demonstrate just how utterly divorced from reality the person who made that statement is.”
It’s really quite a stunning leap of distorted paranoid logic.”
Let’s see if in fact it is a stunning leap of distorted paranoid logic.

You support the elimination of God from every aspect of our society. You don’t believe that the foundations of our country had anything to do with the founding Father’s Christian values. You want people to believe that, far from being a devout Christian, George Washington was a Freemason who formed a great nation by his participation in an esoteric secret society defined as “A peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols”. You believe that Christianity is nothing but superstitions. You believe that Christianity has given man-kind nothing good but only the poisonous fruits of pride and indolence, ignorance and servility, bigotry and persecution. That of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.
Sounds almost like a Dan Brown Novel Kip!

Now I fully expect you to list the number of Presidents and world leaders who were really secretly llumanati.

How much more twisted and distorted can you get than this? I guess the past 2000 years have only been an illusion- a great trick perpetrated against the world by an evil church…billions of people apparently have been hoodwinked… and now that Kip has proven it, maybe it’s time for all of us to renounce our faith.
Seriously, it’s not a stunning leap at all to make the connection between the nonsense that Kip has provided and the rest of the ACLU’s Godless agenda…

Like

George Washington:
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington’s initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
After Washington’s death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”

Thomas Jefferson:
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

John Adams:
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”
In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

James Madison:
Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

Benjamin Franklin:
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, “My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist.”
In an essay on “Toleration,” Franklin wrote:
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.”
Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
“It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers” (Priestley’s Autobiography)

Thomas Paine
This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. ”
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “

Like

And separately (because why obfuscate further by bringing together two separate and entirely unrelated issues?), this quote:
“So, according to Rich and Kippa’s philosophy, it is desirable even virtuous to protect the rights of child pornographers while at the same time wasting thousands upon thousands of taxpayer’s dollars to remove a cross from State Seal and prevent a school kid from wearing a shirt that says “Jesus” ——man……it’s truly a mad, mad, mad, mad, world!!” only goes to demonstrate just how utterly divorced from reality the person who made that statement is. ”
It’s really quite a stunning leap of distorted paranoid logic.

Like

Kippa—
Wrote:

“Actually I didn’t make any such claim, though Rich’s statement that most of the Founding Fathers believed in deism is entirely correct.”

Kiparama –you made the claim implicitly by the substance of your comment… and now it’s no longer implied but directly stated…..thanks

Please name the “deist” founding Fathers that you are referring to and elucidate and illuminate for us the core of their beliefs. Which ones believed that God abandoned us after the creation, assumed no control over life, exerts no influence on natural phenomena, and gives no supernatural revelation?

It’s not enough Kipster, just to make a claim—-you have to support it!!
I await your reply with bated breadth

Like

Reply –specific to Kippa-
As is usual with secularists, Kippa’s comment about Francis Bellamy and the addition of “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance conveniently leaves out important details. The tactic of “omission” is not uncommon when people try to re-write history.

“Bellamy’s granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change (under God). He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church altogether”

Let’s start with honest Abe:
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

Abraham Lincoln:

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

How the words “UNDER GOD” came to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States originated on Columbus Day, 1892. It contained no reference to Almighty God, until in New York City on April 22, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend the Pledge of Allegiance as recited at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by the addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation”. The adoption of this resolve by the Supreme Board of Directors had the effect of an immediate initiation of this practice throughout the aforesaid Fourth Degree Assembly meetings.
At their annual State Meetings, held in April and May of 1952, the State Councils of Florida, South Dakota, New York and Michigan adopted resolutions recommending that the Pledge of Allegiance to be so amended and that Congress be petitioned to have such amendment made effective.
Copies of the amended pledge were sent to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and to each member of both Houses of Congress. From this latter action, many favorable replies were received, and a total of seventeen resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives to so amend the Pledge of Allegiance as set forth in the Public Law relating the use of the Flag. The resolution introduced by Congressman Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan was adopted by both Houses of Congress, and it was signed by President Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, thereby making official the amendment conceived, sponsored, and put into practice by the Knights of Columbus more than three years before.

Hey Kippa, sure sounds like government of the people, by the people, for the people to me!

But if you like, please feel free to recite the Godless version of the pledge,

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

Pledge allegiance to “My flag???”…..exactly what flag would that be? And to the Republic for which it stands?? What Republic would that be? A Republic that stands for nothing is not worth pledging allegiance to!!

Nicholas Finnegan

Like

“Secularists, like Rich and Kippa Herring, (ACLU Darlings for sure) claim that the Founding fathers were deist or irreligious.”

Actually I didn’t make any such claim, though Rich’s statement that most of the Founding Fathers believed in deism is entirely correct.

My points were,

1) that the Pledge, as originally written, was secular.

2) that the United States Constitution is a secular document.

3) that religious teaching has no place within the public education system.

The most convincing evidence that the government of America did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the Constitution itself.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being.
There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment’s says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article VI, Section 3, “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

Like

Shirley, you are one of my heros!! I always get a sense of calm abiding and sincere love and compassion for humanity when I read your blog.

Like

• Secularists, like Rich and Kippa Herring, (ACLU Darlings for sure) claim that the Founding fathers were deist or irreligious

Not true!!!!!!!!!

Founding fathers–

About George Washington–
“He was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man.”
{Quote by John Marshall [Revolutionary General, Secretary of State, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice]}
“To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.”
{Quote by Gunning Bedford, signer of the Constitution}
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
–George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779

General Orders issued by Washington
The General most earnestly requires and expects…of all officers and soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.—General Orders. Fitzpatrick 3:309. (1775.)

The honorable Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a chaplain to each regiment,…the colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure chaplains accordingly, persons of good characters and exemplary lives, [and] to see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but especially so in times of public distress and danger.—General Orders. Fitzpatrick 5:244. (1776.)

Alexander Hamilton
“The Ratifier of the Constitution”
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.” [July 12, 1804 at his death]

Alexander Hamilton explained in an 1802 letter to James Bayard:
“I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated ‘The Christian Constitutional Society,’ its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

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

Contrast that with Rich and Kippa’s GOD (THE ACLU):
The American Civil Liberties Union’s recent demand that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the county seal demonstrates just how far this and other far left groups will go to remove faith from our nation.

In February of this year, the City of San Diego forked over $950,000 in legal fees to the ACLU for a First Amendment lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the City and the Boy Scouts on behalf of an atheist and a lesbian couple

In 1999, after the ACLU and the People for American Way sued a county library for using software to filter out Internet porn, a federal judge awarded the groups $106,918.25 in legal fees.

ACLU QUOTE:
“Students of liberty, from John Stuart Mill to Thomas Emerson, have all intentionally excluded children from their formula for freedom. The ACLU does not. Not even when the subject is pornography.

In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sex ploitation of children for profit.”
So, according to Rich and Kippa’s philosophy, it is desirable even virtuous to protect the rights of child pornographers while at the same time wasting thousands upon thousands of taxpayer’s dollars to remove a cross from State Seal and prevent a school kid from wearing a shirt that says “Jesus” ——man……it’s truly a mad, mad, mad, mad, world!!

Like

# Lazaro Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:03 pm

I wonder what would happen in Saudi if schoolchildren said the Lord’s Prayer.

I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make…but here’s an answer:

–who gives a (deleted word) about what happens in Saudi Arabia?!!!! They’re a backward and barbaric country. A thousand years ago they believed in Genies (jinni) a supernatural creature who does one's bidding when summoned from a lamp. But they have progressed greatly in the intervening years and are so much more modern and sophisticated today and their values are certainly worthy of being compared to the U.S. Let’s see: .Now they believe that Muslim 'martyrs' will enjoy rich sensual rewards on reaching paradise. The Islamic paradise is described in great sensual detail in the Koran and the Traditions (HADITHS); for instance, Koran sura 56 verses 12 -40; sura 55 verses 54-56; sura 76 verses 12-22: "They shall recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be dark-eyed virgins chaste as hidden pearls, sheltered in their tents whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before." A reward for their deeds… We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand… (And from the Hadith): 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 virgins, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah to Sana'a "The Prophet said, 'Nobody who enters Paradise will ever like to return to this world even if he were offered everything, except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed 10 times for the sake of the great honor that has been bestowed upon him'." [Sahih Muslim, chapters 781, 782, The Merit of Jihad and the Merit of Martyrdom.]

Asking what would happen to schoolchildren if they said the Lord’s Prayer in Saudi Arabia is like asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin!!

Like

JourneyTo Mom–
Melissa wrote:
“I agree with Shirley. It’s not so much the teaching of Islam and Muslim culture, but the lack of tolerance for also teaching about Christianity – in a so called Christian nation, no less. It is balance we seek, that is all.
Interesting post, as usuall, Shirley.”
Melissa

Melissa–
It’s excellent that you agree with Shirley but your subsequent apologetic disclaimer about “teaching Islam” is not necessary. We should forget about “balance”! It is exactly our sense and expectation of fairness and balance that Islamists are insidiously using against us. They are using our own Constitution as protection to accomplish their ends. Quietly, Islamists do their work throughout the West to win support. They advance their cause through lobbying politicians, intimidating the media, threatening international boycotts, making predatory use of the legal system, advancing novel legislation, influencing the contents of school textbooks, and in other ways exploiting the freedoms of an open society. They advance their agenda in incremental steps, each of which in itself is minor but in the aggregate point to fundamental changes in society.
We can’t afford to treat these people as if they’re just innocent harmless fellow believers who, if we can just get them to a Sunday school class, we can change their hearts and minds.
Study the history Of Muhammad and of Islam. You will clearly see what their goal has always been (and still is)
Islamists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari’a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their “real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law.”
Headline:
McGuinty insists women safe if shariah allowed in Ontario
Toronto — Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promises the rights of women will not be compromised if the province allows Muslims to use shariah — Islamic law — to settle civil and marital disputes.
And that’s just a foothold!!!!!!!
Time to Wake Up!!

Like

Reference- Rich:
He wrote: “well Shirley if truth be told our founding fathers of the U S of A were not evangelical Christians but Deists”

Definition of Deism:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Rich is a secularists:

Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and that this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don’t mix. . . . There are several historical “facts” secularists use to support their views. One of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word “God” in the U.S. Constitution. To a secularist, the absence of the word “God” has a deep, almost mystical significance. It suggests that the framers had little or no interest in religion. In reality however, to the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationists of one form or another. This is the reason the framers did not create a “secular” state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of “secularism” as it is used today didn’t even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth-century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a “secular” state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes necessary. At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. But The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies.

George Washington’s first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President’s opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . .” The words “to obey His will” are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in “secularism.” In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.

LOOK IT UP RICH!!!!!!

Like

The words “under God” were NOT part of the original Pledge, which was written towards the end of the nineteeth century by the Christian socialist minister Francis Bellamy.
In its original form it read, “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

“My flag” was changed to “the Flag of the United States” in 1923, and the following year the Pledge was altered again with the addition “of America” after “Flag of the United States.” This version of the Pledge was codified into Public Law in 1942.

In 1954, to protect America from being infected by godless Communist tendencies, the Pledge was amended to include the words “under God;”

Since 1954, the now religious Pledge has read: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

America was founded on a secular Constitution and a belief in the separation of church and state. Accordingly, formal religious teaching has no place within the public education system.

Like

Well, Helen and I agree on most things, but on many we are strongly at odds. This is one of them, of course.

I believe we all agree that our country is being greatly challenged. I pray for God’s will and for direction in our lives and in those of our leaders. These are perilous days, and I honestly fear for our future.

Except this: I have made my own preparations to meet God, for one day I will stand before Him and must speak for myself. No other person’s opinion will count, only God’s judgment will be considered. I want to do right by man and by God.

Like

Oh yea..
P.S.

HelenL wrote:
“Articles like this are proof positive that we don’t really want to learn about others. We just want to be right. If Christianity cannot stand up to Islam, choose Islam. But, praise God, it can.”

Shirley, you are completely in the right to use this article to enlighten and warn folks about the dangers and threats, internal and external, that our nation faces. The rulings of California’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should serve as a wake up call to all Americans. It is, without a shadow of a doubt NOT “proof positive that we really don’t want to learn”

Helen is, as usual, completely misguided, perhaps by a deep subconscious guilt about her own affluence and success (at the expense of those less fortunate) and this is her usual response to articles of this nature. In order to compensate (or maybe over compensate) for this, she sets about re-shaping traditional American values to support her own odd political interests and agenda which appear in her own mind as a grandiose crusade for “social justice”

Like

Wow!!! Well written and very informative…thanks for bringing this to the attention of the “blogosphere”… Coincidentally, it quite nicely encapsulates the purpose of my blog: to remind people that they must be eternally vigilant in order to preserve and protect their liberty and their Christian way of life. Folks need to know that:
>It’s o.k. and in fact increasingly necessary to fearlessly reference God (from a Christian perspective) in public debate, in the pledge of allegiance and in our schools.
>It’s not O.K. to allow people (immigrants or others) to break our laws for any reason at all.Especially when it threatens our national security.
>School Kids at all levels are being proselytized and indoctrinated with extreme radical views that serve to bolster and embolden the enemies of this country.
>The state of education in this country is deplorable.
Awakened Warrior

Like

I agree with you, Rich, that there is absolutely no substitute for teaching Christian principles in our homes. I am convinced that herein lies much of America’s problems; our family units have drastically deteriorated.

Like

No there should be no teaching of prayers in schools. I mean silent prayer would be okay but forcing Christian principles would be wrong as well.
Christian principles should be taught in the homes.

Like

Thank you, Rich, for coming here and for commenting. I’m aware of what you are saying, yet I believe it is a fair understanding that America is known to be of Christian/Judeo culture.

Does the fact that many of our founding fathers were Deists cause you to believe it is acceptable for teachings of Islam and Mulim principles and prayers to be taught in our schools, while at the same time, extremely limiting the teachings of Christianity? (sorry about the long sentence.)

Again, thank you for your time and interest.

Like

well Shirley if truth be told our founding fathers of the U S of A were not evangelical Christians but Deists. Look it up! There might’ve been one Calvinist or two like Witherspoon but George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson(he wrote his own Bible tearing out the supernatural parts-resurrection of Jesus,miracles, etc)were not fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians.
Yes there were some Puritans(calvinists) that came over for freedom of religion and other religious groups but our constitution and such was based on Deist’s ideas.

Like

I agree with Shirley. It’s not so much the teaching of Islam and Muslim culture, but the lack of tolerance for also teaching about Christianity – in a so called Christian nation, no less. It is balance we seek, that is all.
Interesting post, as usuall, Shirley.
Melissa

Like

That is a good question, Lazaro. I suspect the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer would not be allowed.

Manjusha, I certainly agree that each person should decide how he wants to live his life, and should have freedom in his home or church to worship as he pleases. I respect each person’s choices in this area, and appreciate others taking the same stance with me. The thrust of this post is the problem of American public schools not allowing the reading of the Bible and little teaching of Christianity, yet promoting Islamic and Muslim teachings. Something seems drastically wrong with that.

I appreciate both of you coming by and commenting. Please return.

Blessings,

Shirley

Like

Carol, as you well know and have lived out, the training of our children is vital. Proverbs 22:6, I believe, says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." The onus is ours–the parents–and if we are not able to home school or to have our children in Christian school, we must be eternally vigilant as to what is being taught in public schools. It is damnable that our schools are not allowed to teach the Bible, but they can, and do, teach Islamic and Muslim principles.

Like

This certainly sounds like a double standard to me. It’s amazing to me the things that are being taught in public schools today. Homeschool is all that my kids have ever known, and although I can’t honestly say that they are excelling academically in every area of study, I am glad when I read things like this, that our family made the choice to educate at home. Thanks for sharing this article.

Like

The link doesn’t seem to work, Shirley. Articles like this are proof postive that we don’t really want to learn about others. We just want to be right. If Christianity cannot stand up to Islam, choose Islam. But, praise God, it can.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s