Category Archives: history

Noah’s Ark Being Rebuilt In The Netherlands

An industrious contractor is rebuilding Noah’s Ark. It’s not clear whether Johan Huibers has heard from God, but he has witnessed several floods overtaking his hometown of Dordrecht. With the onslaught of global warming, flood waters keep rising to ever higher levels.

Huibers claims he is not only concerned about rising flood waters. He also wants people to know about the true and living God.

While Huibers envisions floods of curious people coming to tour the Ark, local officials and business owners are seeing visions of economic growth. Huibers’ profits from a previous ark project were over $1 million, which leads one to believe that the town folk’s visions were inspired.

Tourism is a good thing. If making a part of biblical history real to people generates tourist trade, the gracious God, who delights in the prosperity of His people, probably won’t mind some who are not to benefit as well.

Maybe, they will also get a glimpse of the eternal light that will profit throughout eternity. That seems to be the ultimate goal for rebuilding Noah’s Ark.

If interested, the New York Times report about Huiber’s project can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/world/europe/30ark.html.

Memorial Day, Remembering

By Daniel Downs

On this Memorial Day, the victories, tragedies and sacrifices of war remain fresh memories to many Americans. Each soldier who made it home alive and whole is certainly one victory celebrated by family and friends. Another was the Navy Seals accomplishment in executing justice to Osama bin Laden.

The tragedy of 9-11, of loved ones killed in battle, and even the collateral damage of a seemingly unjust military action in Iraq that led soldiers like Timothy McVey to perpetrate the Oklahoma City bombings are all remembered anew today.

Amidst the feelings of sorrow, the honorable sacrifices of those who willingly gave their lives to serve their country, their loved ones, their God, and the ideals of liberty, justice, and peace cannot be forgotten. For sacrificial service is the path to a better life.

America was founded by those who not only exemplified this kind of sacrificial service but they followed the one who made it possible for them to do so. God was their leader in the battle for liberty, justice, and peace. After the war for Independence has been won, General George Washington gave God the providential honors for the rag-tag militia’s final victory. That was also the reason why America celebrated the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution until after the Civil War era.

It is right that America honors all of those men and women who have devoted their lives to protecting and to serving us. Yet, it would not be right to regard their military service as the sole means of our collective protection. The war against injustice is waged by all of those involved in our system of justice whether police, intelligence services, lawyers, judges, and even private sector advocates. Just as George Washington confirmed our national covenant, the protection of a free nation such as ours ultimately is realized through God’s actions. It may also be said that by our collective honor of and obedience to God we become better equipped to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our nation.

American founders like Thomas Jefferson envisioned America as a kind of new Israel. Their model is found in the Bible. As depicted in the second book called Exodus, God may have delivered Israel from the enslaving power of the Egyptian government, but it was the liberated men of Israel, empowered by the presence of God, who defeated all of their enemies in Canaan; that is, when they were following the instructions and strategies revealed by God. The founders similarly viewed American liberty. They viewed the victory of the war for independence as God delivering them from the Pharisaic power of the enslaving British imperial military in the colonies. It was won through divinely empowered colonists who willingly sacrificed their lives to liberate and protect their families, communities, their colonial states.

Therefore, in the tradition of remembering those who devote their lives to the divinely ordained sacrificial service of liberty and justice, thanks is offered to God first and secondly to all of those men and women whose service honors that tradition.

And yet, in light of the expansion of America’s empire from 50 federated republican states to world dominance, can it be said of America that it is still the champion of life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness? More importantly, can it still be said that the tradition of sacrificial service to defend life and liberty is still honored while millions of unborn Americans are not allowed to live to enjoy the same? Does not this tragedy of our unabated cultural war cast a dark and heavy shadow over the past shining examples of liberty and justice, duty and honor?

Yes, a more fundamental and more important war has yet to be won. If won, life will be better and a greater measure of peace will be realized. The right to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness will no longer be threatened. For without the absolute right to life, all other rights and privileges are empty words in the mouths of tyrants.

Beyond UN Resolution 242

The following is a response to President Obama’s speech at a recent AIPAC conference. During his speech, Pres. Obama reiteratesd the proposed return of land taken as a result of an act of war perpetrated by a number of Arab nations against Israel in 1967. Professor Eidelberg’s rebuttal was first aired on Israel National radio. Prof. Eidelberg is professor of political science and founder of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in Israel.

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

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Attorney Howard Grief’s The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law which is subtitled “A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty Over the Land of Israel,” is probably the most comprehensive and incisive analysis of Israel’s legal claim to the land its repossessed in the Six-Day War of June 1967. This monumental work is actually the culmination of scholarly articles Grief began publishing in the mid-1990s for the Ariel Center for Policy Research. This should be borne in mind as I read the most salient passages of the Grief’s book dealing with UN Resolution 242. I will then proceed to consider, from a theological perspective, the failure of Israeli prime ministers to defend their people’s claim to the land in question.

On November 22, 1967, in the wake of the Six-Day War, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242. As Grief informs us that “In regard to all Security Council resolutions relating to the Middle East, it is important to examine the question if Israel is legally bound by any of these resolutions, particularly in regard to Israel having to withdraw its armed forces from [so-called] ’occupied territories,’ as indicated by Resolution 242….

Referring to a 1969 article by the jurist Amos Shapiro, then a senior lecturer in Law at Tel-Aviv University, Grief points out that “there is a fundamental distinction between decisions of the Security Council which are binding in nature and decisions which are only advisory and not compulsory.” Shapiro’s “penetrating analysis makes clear that only those resolutions or decisions that impose legal obligations on the parties concerned, even without  their consent,  must be obeyed by UN members unless they are inconsistent with other provisions of the [UN] Charter. On the other hand, resolutions or decisions which are no more than recommendations, do not have to be complied with by UN members unless they freely consent to implement them.”

Grief goes on to show, by analysis of Chapter VI of the Charter, that UN Resolution 242 was a “non-binding recommendation.” He notes “There has never been any agreed-upon definitive interpretation of Resolution 242, especially as to whether Israel has to withdraw from all or only some of the territories re-conquered and repossessed from Jordan, Syria and Egypt… However, [says Grief] it can be stated without any qualification that any Security Council Resolution that aims to oblige Israel to withdraw from any land that was designated to be included in the Jewish National Home under the [Palestine] Mandate … is ipso facto illegal, since such a resolution would be in direct conflict with Article 80 of the Charter and the acquired legal rights of the Jewish People secured under previous acts of international law, to which the doctrine of estoppels applies.”

“Resolution 242 can therefore have no application to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which were originally included in the Jewish National Home under the Mandate for Palestine. Nor should it be applied to the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in the Six-Day War of June 1967, since this territory is part of historical Palestine rather than of historical Syria, though it was improperly and illegally exclude from the borders of mandated Palestine in the Demarcation Agreement of February 3, 1922.”

Grief goes on to say that “A separate reason that can be invoked by Israel for not withdrawing to the pre-war armistice lines is that since Israel fought a war of defense against its Arab neighbors, Egypt, Jordan and Syria, it is entitled to keep those areas it re-captured in the Six-Day War from the occupying countries that expressly threatened ‘to wipe Israel off the map’ or participated in the joint Arab aggression.”

“In fact, says Grief, “Even the application of Resolution 242 to the Sinai cannot be sustained, because in 1967 when this resolution was passed, this territory did not belong to Egypt under international law, and so Israel was not obliged to make any withdrawal from Sinai since it did not constitute ‘occupied territory’ within the meaning of Article 42 of the Hague Resolutions….”

Grief also observes that, “Despite Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai … there was never any admission by Israel that Sinai belonged as of right to Egypt. That was still the legal situation prevailing when Resolution 242 was passed on November 22, 1967. Bearing in mind the legal status of the territories repossessed by Israel in 1967, at which Resolution 242 was undoubtedly aimed, the appropriateness of describing these territories as ‘occupied’ under international law is not only challengeable but definitely wrong. It is therefore a travesty,” says Grief, “to affirm that Israel is obliged under international law to withdraw from territories that are deemed to be ‘occupied’ when, in fact, they had been recognized internationally in 1919, 1920 and 1922 as being the patrimony of the Jewish People represented today by the State of Israel.”

So why did Israel accept Resolution 242? According to Grief, “Israel’s acceptance of this resolution was seen by the Levi Eshkol National Unity Government as beneficial because its text stated that ‘every state in the area’, which naturally included Israel, has the ‘right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”’ ….

“In addition it was understood from the language and content of Resolution 242 that Israel’s withdrawal to ‘secure and recognized boundaries’ did not entail complete withdrawal from all the territories described in the resolution as occupied by Israel armed forces in the recent conflict. The clear understanding that Israel did not have to make a complete withdrawal to the 1949 ceasefire lines … was reinforced by the fact that these lines could never be considered ‘secure’ borders by reputable military experts, as attested to by the constant infiltration into Israel, prior to the war, by terrorists and marauders determined to wreak murder and havoc from both Egyptian-occupied Gaza and the Jordanian-occupied ‘West Bank’….

“Despite the language of Resolution 242 and its logical consequences, Arab states, aided and abetted by Russia and its Communist allies, as well as western European powers interpreted Resolution 242 in another way, to mean Israel’s full withdrawal to the [1949] armistice lines …. Nor was the United States very different in this regard. Under the Rogers Plan of October 1969, presented by Secretary of State William Rogers, Israel had to withdraw to the armistice lines with Jordan with only insubstantial alterations, and to the boundary that existed with Egypt just prior to the outbreak of the war. The Rogers plan did not deal with the fate of the Golan Heights.

“The Rogers Plan was followed by President Ronald Reagan’s Peace Initiative of September 1, 1982…. It described UN 242 as ‘the foundation-stone of America’s Middle East peace effort’, which, it said, applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza.”

This is where the state of Israel is today, trapped at the in a 44-year period of political impotence and ideological fatigue, a period during which one Israeli prime minister after another have failed to stand up and defend their people’s birthright. Instead, they have insanely pursued, as Professor Louis Rene Beres has brilliantly described, a never-ending Sisyphus peace process with haters of Jews and Israel. In the process, they have been undoing the miracle of the Six-Day War. This is a display of monumental ingratitude, and on an international scale which may be deemed a desecration of God’s Name. The subsequent degradation of Israel follows as night follows day.

Ingratitude is as old as Adam who was given life in the Garden of Eden, “the environment,” says Joshua Berman, “in which man can enter into communion with the divine.” “The land of Israel,” he adds, “can be construed as a conceptual expansion of the garden of Eden.”  Therein was the Temple to which all mankind may come and be blessed.

Make no mistake: It was not simply the Israel Defense Forces that defeated five Arab armies in 1948.  Nor was it simply the IDF that defeated Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian forces in six days of the June 1967 war.

To undo the miracle of that war is to expose Israel to Adam’s punishment for ingratitude. Make no mistake: Israel has been given an implacable enemy animated by a love of death.  There is only one way to confront this enemy, and that is to stand for the God of Israel, the God of life.

A Letter To Our Elected Representatives

Dear Officeholder,

As a citizen I wish to thank you for your willingness to step forward and serve in public office. It must be challenging to voluntarily place oneself under intense scrutiny in order to run for political office. I do take your role as a leader very seriously, so please bear with me as I share with you some of my concerns and criticisms.

When you chose to protect and preserve our Republic , there was an implicit understanding that you would give your very best to confront and resolve the many problems facing us today. One of the basic elements of problem-solving is to stop the problem from becoming worse when attempting to resolve the issue. In my view, you and your colleagues continue to fail in this regard. Despite all the rhetoric about “directions” and “paths,” our future continues to grow more ominous. Pay to play politics and back-room deals which are so apart of our defunct government will NOT restore the limits of Constitutional government. Commitment to the founding principles and the devotion to your Oath of office will. You cannot serve two Masters. Either you serve at the will of varied special interests or you serve the highest law of the land, the Constitution of the United States.

When you, the representative maintain that fidelity to the Constitution, you do not wander into the thickets of irresponsible spending and the eroding of our individual rights. Every time a public servant strays outside the constitutional limitations, we the citizens lose our liberty, property and our inalienable rights guaranteed to us by our Creator. You must remember that government does not produce anything of value. Government is merely a redistribution mechanism, and indeed, an inefficient one at that. The Founders recognized that for a nation to prosper the citizens must enjoy the maximum amount of freedom allowable for a civil society. Have you and your colleagues not learned what America’s Founding Fathers proclaimed? They painstakingly avoided a democracy and built a constitutional republic. The difference between these two forms of government are paramount in restoring America’s greatness and maximizing individual liberty.

Many people who enter public office want to do “good.” Yet when they drift beyond the articles set forth by the Constitution, the “good” often becomes anything but. Your Oath, if taken seriously, compels you to strict adherence to the Constitution, not to forage far and wide while looking for any and all social ills to heal here at home or abroad. Government has proven to be an incredibly flawed instrument, and for you to assume that government is the best vehicle for correcting deficiencies in the social structure is wishful at best and delusional at worst. Famous frontiersman and representative from Tennessee Davy Crockett learned this valuable lesson. During a visit to his district he stopped to speak to a man plowing his field. What transpired was a lesson all elected representatives and voters should take note of. “It is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it” said the man taking a moment from his work. Knowing that Colonel Crockett had “stepped beyond the limits of his Oath,” the gentleman politely informed Crockett of why he would not be voting for him in the upcoming election. He told him, “I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it.” Needless to say, Crockett learned a valuable lesson. I would encourage everyone to read “Not Yours to Give” from “The Life of Davey Crockett,” by Edward S. Ellis.

Perhaps I am wrongly casting you among those who have grossly abused their power and their Oath. If so, I apologize, but I along many whom cannot speak for themselves as of yet, do insist that you stand firm, to speak loudly and forcefully, to resist EVERY usurpation of our liberties and immediately restore the Founders meaning to our legislatures. Even if you are not actively engaged in the undermining of our Constitutional government, you cannot comply with or ignore those who are. Your sworn duty, before God and the citizens, is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Meekly allowing others such as NATO; the United Nations; The Federal Reserve; The Council on Foreign Relations and a host of other “unaccountables” to run roughshod over our freedoms while confiscating our hard-earned wealth without bellowing in protest means that you are at the very least underestimating the resolve of Patriotic Americans, or at worst complicit to treason by levying war against the very documents that serves to protect our way of life.

Our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the amendments known as the Bill of Rights are the life-blood of Liberty and what separates America from all others . The very least you can demand of your colleagues is fidelity to its own governing documents. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” or that judges may interpret them as they please, are fraudulent and incompatible with our form of government. In a free society, government is restrained and political power is of less importance. It is only in an environment of freedom that man is capable of achieving his full potential. And it is you the office holder who must understand these ideals while respecting the limits placed upon you by your Oath, that we can once again shine with brilliance in a world of tyranny.

By Andy Myers

Bio: Andy Myers is a former U.S. Army Paratrooper who served with the 1st Special Forces Group. He is the Defense Policy Analyst for the Ohio Freedom Alliance and works to educate others on the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Lawsuit Against National Day of Prayer Dismissed

On April 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) lawsuit attacking the federal government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, ruling that the atheists do not have legal standing to bring the suit. Liberty Institute and Family Research Council (FRC) filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Dr. James Dobson, Citizenlink (formerly Focus on the Family Action), the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), Let Freedom Ring, and Liberty Counsel, along with 28 state family policy councils arguing that FFRF lacks standing and that government observances of prayer are not only constitutional but modeled by our forefathers.

In response to Court’s ruling, Kelly Shackelford, President of Liberty Institute, said,

“We applaud the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of this desperate attempt to erase our country’s rich history of calling for prayer. Sadly, some are determined to censor religious expression in the public arena. As long as Liberty Institute exists and the Constitution is in place, we will do everything in our power to ensure that never happens.”
The Court’s ruling, which strongly rejects FFRF’s opposition to government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, says that being excluded or “hurt feelings differ from legal injury.”

Last year, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the federal government’s observation of prayer was unconstitutional, despite numerous rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that protect long-standing traditions of religious invocations. When Congress passed a statute in 1952 calling for the President to issue a proclamation designating the National Day of Prayer, it memorialized the virtually unbroken tradition of Presidents from Washington to Obama who designated a day of prayer.

“The 7th Circuit’s decision in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama once again affirms what the vast majority of Americans know intuitively: that we should not and indeed cannot separate our nation’s history from the influence of religion on its founders,” said Brad Miller, director of family policy councils for Citizenlink. “Even Americans with a decidedly agnostic view of religion cannot refute the important role religious tradition has played throughout the history of this great nation. The President’s proclamation is simply a continuation of a long and deep tradition of urging and acknowledging prayer as a fundamental part of a healthy society. We applaud this decision and the great work of our allies at the Liberty Institute for their work on behalf of religious freedom.”

This year, National Day of Prayer is set for May 5.

Source: Liberty Institute, April 14, 2011.

Nazism, Democracy, and the Murder of Reason

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

According to one study, 97 percent of all teachers in Nazi Germany were members of the Nazi party. Many of these teachers taught the humanities­—philosophy, literature, the fine arts. Many others taught the social sciences—sociology, political science, psychology, anthropology.

Clearly, the study and teaching of the humanities and the social sciences do not make people virtuous. We should not be surprised. For the prevailing doctrine in the humanities and the social sciences is moral relativism, which claims that reason cannot provide objective standards of good and bad, right and wrong. This is the prevailing doctrine in American and Israeli universities.

As for the exact sciences, physics and chemistry, they are ethically neutral. How did German scientists respond to Nazism? In his book on the great theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger, Walter Moore’s says: “There is no known instance in which a professor of physics or chemistry without any Jewish family ever made any open protest against Nazi activities. Even among the German intellectual elite, the scientists were conspicuously unanimous in this respect, since a few protests can be found among scholars in other fields.”

Science can serve dictators as well as democrats—witness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This means that science does not make scientists or their societies humane. But much the same may be said of the secular democratic state in which moral relativism permeates every level of education. Witness the moral decay in America and Europe.

By the way: there are approximately 200 divergent schools of psychology, hence 200 different conceptions of human nature; and virtually all purvey the doctrine of moral relativism.

Because secular education is ethically neutral, it undermines reverence, awareness of what is noble, and this cannot but corrupt youth. Whatever decency we experience today we owe primarily to the waning influence of Torah values and classical Greek philosophy exemplified in Plato and Aristotle. During America’s constitution-forming period, Hebrew and the study of the Hebrew Bible constituted an essential part of the curriculum at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other universities. And so too were the classics.

A silent and insidious revolution has occurred in America. Not only have the classics been replaced by multiculturalism, but a reversion to paganism is evident on university campuses, where gays and lesbians feel at home, and they have similar types or indifferent representatives in Congress. They and their academic defenders would have us believe that homosexuality is “progressive.” In fact, homosexuality is reactionary, a throwback to paganism.

To sexual perversion add the nudity, pornography, and obscene violence purveyed by the entertainment media, which some half-educated psychologists justify as providing an “escape valve” for repressed instincts. Has it ever occurred to these secular educators of our youth that the nudity now commonplace in the cinema and television is indicative of superficiality? Has it ever occurred to them that pornography, by reducing love to lust, generates vulgarity? Has it ever occurred to their adolescent minds that media violence undermines kindness and compassion?

Thanks very much to utterly secularized education and to those who profit from the commercial exploitation of sex and violence, people are more concerned about the quality of things that goes into their stomachs than the quality of things that goes into their minds—or into the minds of their children. But this is the inevitable consequence of contemporary democracy, whose supreme principle is unfettered freedom of expression. Do not expect the high priests of the secular democratic state to reverse the ethically neutral principles of democracy, the religion of our times. But bear in mind that Weimar Germany, a democracy steeped in moral relativism, spawned tyranny.

Democracy is usually associated with reason. But reason takes a holiday from democracy when its two great principles, freedom and equality, have no moral constraints. This is more than a political issue: it’s a theological issue, and it underlies the conflict between the West and Islam.

The West boasts of its rationality. And yes, reason may be effective in the social and political dealings of democrats. But these democrats, whether secular or not, are living on borrowed time, having been influenced by a now waning Judeo-Christian culture based on the idea that man is created in the image of God. This idea is rejected by Islamic theology, and contrary to Daniel Pipes, this makes Islam incompatible with democracy; it also makes abiding peace with Islamic regimes impossible so long as they deem the Quran as sacred and immutable.

Utter indifference to Islamic theology led Jewish prime ministers into the Oslo covenant of death. This is the result of a morally neutral or secularized system of education. These half-educated Jewish democrats really believed that reason and mutual understanding would resolve Israel’s conflict with her Islamic foes.

Not all democrats, not even all social democrats, betray such ignorance or stupidity. Contrast the 19th century social democrat Ferdinand Lassalle, a Jew. In his drama Franz von Sickengen, there occurs a dialogue between a Lutheran chaplain, a pacifist, and Ulrick von Hutten, the great 16th century humanist. To the pacifist’s contention that reason as opposed to force is the driving principle of history, von Hutten replies: “My worthy Sir! You are ill-acquainted with history. Reason is its content, but its form is ever force.”

Recalling that it was the sword that saved Greece from Xerxes, and liberated Jerusalem from the Saracens; that it was the sword that David, Samson, and Gideon labored with, von Hutten concludes: “Thus, long ago as well as since, the sword achieved the glories told by history; and all that is great, as yet to be achieved, owes, in the end, its triumph to the sword.”

The sword saved Europe from the tyranny of Nazi Germany. But did reason emerge triumphant? Is it not the case that democratic Europe sides with the Palestinian Authority, a kleptocratic tyranny? Are Europe’s political and intellectual elites oblivious of the fact that the PA trains Arab children to emulate homicide bombers?

Decadent Europe aside, what are we to say of Israeli prime ministers who believe that reciprocity, or the give-and-take of conventional politics, will solve Israel’s conflict with Muslims. Don’t these Jewish politician know that Islamic theology regards as blasphemous the idea that man is created in the image of God, that Muslims reject the primacy of free will and reason, since both contradict Allah’s omnipotence?

Purdue University political scientist Louis Rene Beres says that “All politics is delinquency, challenging and besmirching life with the eternally smug babble of criminals, fools and … above all, the gibberish of the ordinary.” Beres regards Israeli politics, as “infantile.” For evidence, it’s enough to point out that Israeli prime ministers have released, armed, and paid thousands of Arab Jew-killers to provide for Israel’s security! Can such “useful idiots” take Islam seriously?

But if you want to laugh or cry about such idiocy, here’s a story from multicultural America, where relativism and secularized education thrive. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Alabama law which authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of “silent meditation or voluntary prayer.” Soon thereafter the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit replaced its anti-Christian agenda by enforcing a pro-Islamic agenda! As one commentator noted, this same court, which has jurisdiction over nine states and fifty-nine million Americans, ruled that it was not constitutional for public school students to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but that it was constitutional for public schools to require a three-week general indoctrination to the Islamic faith in which junior high-school students—even those who are not Muslims—must pretend they are Muslims and must offer prayers to Allah; they are further urged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Islamic garb, participate in Islamic games, and read the Koran during those three weeks. Significantly, the federal court of appeals did not think that requiring Islamic religious activities violated the so-called “separation of church and state” [doctrine] but that voluntarily saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance did.

Of course this is an attack on America’s Judeo-Christian foundations and a kowtowing to Islam.

This should worry Jews in Israel. Perhaps they should revive and update the ideas of the Hebraic Republic of antiquity? Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, Protestant and Catholic Hebraists in England, Holland, and Italy regarded the Hebraic Republic as the wisest and most just in history. John Shelden proposed that Britain replace its Parliament with the Sanhedrin! I have just finished a book which shows that the ideas underlying the original American Constitution are fundamentally Hebraic. Perhaps reviving aspects of that Republic should be the goal of those who deplore Israel’s dysfunctional political system?

This would require radical change in what is called “higher education.” In the end, however, the sword will also determine Israel’s future.

Abortion, a Constitutional Right? (38 Years of Roe v Wade)

by Daniel Downs

Today, January 22, 2011, America remembers the Supreme Court decision that inaugurated abortion as legally protected privacy right. Pro-abortion supporters celebrate this day while devotees of pro-life oppose its existence.

A majority of Americans believe abortion is a constitutional right. In a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of Americans agreed Roe v Wade established a women’s right to abortion. I noticed most polls present abortion right as an established Constitutional right and proceed asking whether respondents want an amendment to ban it. Interestingly, 70% of Americans believe Supreme Court justices base their decisions on politics and not law according to the above poll. (Quinnipiac National Poll, April 21, 2010)

In a brief speech today, President Obama commemorated the Roe v Wade decision as establishing a women’s constitutional right to abortion. He said, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” (USA Today)

Yes, most Americans believe in abortion as a constitutional right, but where is found in the U.S. Constitution? It is missing in the Supreme Law of the Land.

How then did the majority of Supreme Court justices discover it? They found a woman’s right to abortion in several places. First, natural law states that individuals have an absolute right over their own bodies. Second, they saw this natural law right positively in the 4the Amendment clauses forbidding government intrusion into private matters. Third, and last, they founded a technicality in the disagreement among academics and so-called professionals about when life begins. This technicality was their justification to permit abortions until “society” establishes such a consensus agreement, which they knew was likely to be never. They knew for such a consensus definition to occur secularists and traditionalist or moralists and liberal and conservatives, humanists and religionists would all have to come to an agreement that life begins at conception.

The problems with the Roe v Wade decision are many. Several worth stating are as follows: (1) Roe v Wade violates the law that prohibits individuals from harming their own bodies or others. Our laws allow officials arrest and detain people who seek to destroy their own body parts. (2) Human life is the result of the behavior of two people, not one. The court only recognizes the right of the women. In practice, the man has no right to his body part contributed to the newly conceived person. (3) At every stage, a baby develops as a separate entity apart from the women whose body is made to nourish and nurture the new person. A baby at the blastocyte, fetus, or any other stage is still a developing human being. (4) Lastly, the Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life. That two-letter word has more meaning than most people realize. If the right was a “right of life,” however human life may be defined, all Americans have a right to right possess it. However, the right is to life, which indicates a process of obtaining what human life is. And, human life is a process of becoming as well as a state of entropy. Human life is an inheritance of the past and a development toward a future, and a present state of being.

Because human life is an inherited interrelational, historical, and futuristic process, Roe v Wade should be regarded as a political act of violence against all human life. No way can it be constitutional.

Christmas and World Peace

By Daniel Downs

“Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:12)

During the days of Jesus, Augustus Caesar was the acclaimed prince of peace. This praise was without critical comment. Peace in the Roman Empire was not won by reasoned negotiation but by the power of the sword. In the book of Revelation, John sees a rider on a white horse. The rider went conquering and to conquer. This vision describes Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and many other leaders whose peace was packaged for subjugated peoples in terms of existence. Peace meant “my way or else.” A more accurate way of putting it would be don’t make me come back to deal with rebellion or with disruption of the flow of taxes or trade. Maintain law and order as well as tax payments and all will be well. That was the peace of Pax Romana.

In our modern Pax Americanus, the substance behind rhetoric of world peace is often about conflict over trade and disputes about the flow of goods like wheat, oil, and weapons. It is true that concern about the health and well-being of others is debated and money spent to resolve perceived problems. Yet, such concerns remain secondary to the kind of peace necessary for the continued growth in the global economy.

The issue of Middle East peace is one example. The on-going conflict between Israel, Palestinians, and Arabs may be religious and territorial in nature but our contemporary Caesars see the problem as an unnecessary disruption to the flow of goods regionally and globally. The not-so-powerful see the achievement of peace in the Middle East as an end to poverty among Palestinians. Others see poor Palestinians as one weapon of war against the continued existence of the Zionist state, which also means Arabs could have ended Palestinian poverty long ago.

In Pax Americana, liberal special interest groups often criticize Christian conservatives for focusing on politics rather than on the moral reform of individuals in society. Although valid to a point, the criticism is based on the belief that religion is not relevant to public policy affecting all aspects of daily life. The source of this belief is humanism or enlightenment rationalism exemplified by French intellectuals. This view was not held by most early Americans, which is one reason the liberal belief is erroneous. Because religion is both a world view encompassing life now and hereafter as well as a means to resolving problems, religion is crucial to politics.

In fact, religion is likely the only source to genuine peace.

Some will find such as statement outrageous because they see religion as one of the primary sources of violent human abuses, global conflicts, and war. Yet, the same can be said of secularists who have followed Marx such as communist leaders around the world. To the credit of secular statists, hundreds of millions of citizens as well as enemies have been tortured, maimed, and killed.

The mantra of secularists has been “you cannot legislate morality,” which by the way is the basis of peace. The opposite was held by the founders who regarded legislating immorality as an anti-law act. America’s inheritance of the rule of law concept goes back at least to the biblical accounts of the legal and consensus covenant between God and Israel and the development of their law codes and governing institutions. These in turn influenced the development of constitutional law in the American colonies.

The American experiment was the application of previous centuries of the Protestant (Puritan) struggle for religious freedom constituted by culture and law. The testimony of history is religion and bureaucratic power always result in human injustice, institutional led violence, and war. As noted above, the problem is not limited to religion but to ideologies instituted through power of governance. As the horrible news reported daily by the media proves, Calvinist-Puritans are still right about inherent depravity of humanity. It was this self-evident truth that led to the development of written legal compacts of which the US Constitution is one part and contract laws.

As the early Americans understood, peace is achieved by doing what is right according to the law of God and of nature. When laws, public policy, and behavior conform to this law, the result has to be peace. Only then will there be peace on earth and perpetual good will toward men, women, boys, and girls. International terrorism, wars, domestic violence, poverty, greed, envy, revenge, and the like will subside. Goods and services naturally will flow unhindered and without imperialist manipulations. Populations will control themselves without a death culture operated by paternal elitists.

That is exactly why the human race requires salvation by the only real prince of peace—Jesus Christ. Jesus entered the world on a peace mission. Many then and now see his death as mission failure. However, his death accomplished terms of reconciliation between God and humanity that know one else could achieve. His death paid the eternal price required to satisfy God’s justice concerning all of our moral crimes. He was raised from death in order to officiate over its implementation for every human. By accepting God terms of peace, each and all people will learn the way of peace. That is the reason Jesus commissioned his apostles to make disciples of all nations. Only then could there possibly be lasting peace on earth.

Many religions pursue peace as at least one, if not, the primary goal. However, most religious never really obtain peace with God. They miss the requirements of divine justice by only focusing on the necessary behaviors for right standing under God’s rightful rule. The problem is God cannot acquit (forgive) moral crimes committed any more than human judges do. The penalty for crimes committed must be paid. Good behavior before or after a moral crime is not sufficient to pay for the crime committed against God’s law. As the prophets and apostles proclaimed, “The soul that sins it shall die.” That is the price Jesus paid. His lordship guarantees the resources necessary to live right before God and thereby achieve the peace we all desire. Peace with God–the starting point to world peace.

To those who seek peace, Merry Christmas.

Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1782

The following is a reproduction of the First Thanksgiving Proclamation of the Continental Congress. It also provides evidence that under our constitutional form of government (albeit, the first constitution) the United States of America was in fact a Christian nation. It seems illogical to either appeal to or thank the god of deism who is no longer involved in human affairs. Only the biblical God is involved in the daily affairs of men and states. Thus, the following official state proclamation calls for collective gratitude to the Judeo-Christian God.

——————–

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:—– Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.

PRINTED AT EXETER.

First Official Thanksgiving in America

Each first Sunday in November a Thanksgiving Festival is held at the Berkeley Plantation in accordance with documentation from 1619. The event fulfills instructions given to the 38 settlers who arrived on the banks of the James River at Berkeley Hundred as documented in the proclamation:

“Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.”

The settlers set sail in a ship called The Margaret from the Port of Bristol in England, where at the Berkeley Castle funding for the journey was supplied by landowners including Sir Richard Berkeley and William Throckmorton. Agriculture was going through difficult times and many people in the area wanted to start a new life for themselves in America, and so they joined the leaders Sir John Woodleefe, George Thorpe, and John Smyth, who had planned this remarkable and historic voyage. Although they encountered severe weather that delayed their journey, the landing on December 4, 1619, is well documented by the Virginia Company of London.

Charles Berkeley from the Berkeley Castle stressed in his speech for the 1994 Virginia First Thanksgiving Festival that “this was the first thanksgiving to be held on American soil but it was not officially recognized until President Kennedy’s term of office in the 1960s, as beforehand the Pilgrim Fathers were considered to have been the first American settlers to offer Thanksgiving. The Berkeleys in fact preceded them . . . .”

Former Virginia Governor Mills Godwin summarized the setting well in his 1981 remarks: “Berkeley has been a working plantation in Virginia since 1619, and a handsome brick manor house was built here early in the 18th Century. Here was born Benjamin Harrison, V, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a post-Revolutionary Governor of Virginia, and his son, William Henry Harrison, the ninth President of the United States. Today, while privately owned, Berkeley has been magnificently restored and is open to the public as one of America’s distinguished historic shrines.”

As we express our gratitude at these Thanksgiving events, so we live out our words by offering thanks, remembering the past, and pledging to continue the great legacy of those before us who celebrated perpetually . . . and look forward to a great future in this free nation.

Source: Covenant News Newswire, November 21, 2005