Category Archives: history

Can America Restore Its Judeo-Christian Heritage?

Posted on September 17, 2010 by | Leave a comment

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Do you know that the American Declaration of Independence is a theocratic as well as a political document? Do you know, as Lincoln knew, that the Declaration contains the philosophy of the American Constitution?

The signers of that revolutionary document justified their rebellion against the laws of Great Britain by appealing to a Higher Law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Judging, however, from the Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan, neither of these new Supreme Court justices understands or agrees that only God can endow the American people with the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and make them “inalienable.” Mr. Obama and his appointees do not understand that without this Higher Law doctrine, the Declaration’s long list of grievances against the British Crown would be nothing more than arbitrary expressions of discontent having no moral justification.

In the absence of that Higher Law, however, the Court can rule that “everything is justiciable,” including those inalienable God-given rights. These smug, know-nothing individuals would strip the Constitution of any moral foundation and open the door to unlimited government or tyranny.

Americans needs reminding that the laws and institutions prescribed in their Constitution were designed to preclude the evils enumerated in the Declaration. The Framers of the Constitution effectively translated into political and institutional terms the theological manifesto of that document.[i] Yet, no one deemed the Government established under the Constitution a theocracy—quite apart from the First Amendment’s clause regarding religion. That Amendment, as initially understood, simply prohibited Congress from establishing a State religion. Revolted by the example of England, the American Founding Fathers refused to sacralize the modern nation-state, which they deemed powerful enough without investing it with religious authority. America’s monotheistic culture was opposed to a state religion.

That culture was rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage, in which not the State but the People are sovereign under God.[ii] If we think within the context of such a culture and maintain intellectual detachment from our present culture of Triumphant Secularism, it will be obvious that the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from passing laws supportive of the ethical monotheism or universal moral principles of the Declaration.

The ethical monotheism of early America was of paramount significance. Many early American statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization. The second President of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate and signer of the Declaration, had this to say of the Jewish people:

The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other nation…. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.[iii]

The curriculum at Harvard, like those of other early American colleges and universities, was designed by learned and liberal men of “Old Testament” persuasion. Harvard president Increase Mather (1685-1701) was an ardent Hebraist. His writings contain numerous quotations from the Talmud as well as from the works of Sa’adia Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides and other classic Jewish commentators.

Yale University president Ezra Stiles readily discoursed on the Mishna and Talmud with visiting rabbinical authorities. Hebrew and the study of Hebraic laws and institutions were an integral part of Yale’s as well as of Harvard’s curriculum. Much the same may be said of King’s College (later Columbia University), William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown University. Hebrew learning was then deemed a basic element of liberal education.

This attitude was not merely academic. On May 31, 1775, almost on the eve of the American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts Bay, declared: “Every nation … has a right to set up over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent general model.” (Emphasis added.)

Although Jefferson was no admirer of the Hebrew Bible, he framed the Declaration with a view to galvanizing the Bible-reading public in support of the Revolution. When he became President he supported Baptist churches.

During the colonial and constitution-making period, the Americans, especially the Puritans, adapted various Hebraic laws for their own governance. The legislation of New Haven, for example, was based on the premise that “the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses … being neither … ceremonial, nor ha[ving] any reference to Canaan, shall … generally bind all offenders, till they be branched out into particulars hereafter.”

Of course, the Jewish roots of the American Constitution should not obscure the fact that America is first and foremost a Christian nation (Barack Obama to the contrary notwithstanding). This was confirmed in a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court as late as 1892! In the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, Justice Brewer wrote:

? If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the … states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.

? Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”… [and yet] also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. There is no dissonance in these declarations. … They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation…. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

? In People v. Ruggles (1811), Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said [in a case involving blasphemous publications]: “The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

? Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution … either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case [before us] assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.

Chancellor Kent’s denigration of Muhammad and the Grand Lama is of course shocking. But we were speaking of the Judeo-Christian heritage underlying the Declaration and the Constitution.

This heritage of “natural rights” or of “natural law” has been eviscerated by the academic doctrine of moral relativism and its political counterpart the Progressive Movement. Although the institutional structure of the Constitution remains largely intact, the Supreme Court’s amoral and government-expanding interpretation of various constitutional amendments has spawned unfettered freedom of expression and indiscriminate equality, which have vulgarized and secularized America and buried the meritocracy that was to coexist with democracy. America now has a leveling and meaningless or “evolutionary constitution.” The immutable “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” have been replaced by historical relativism. Evolution has produced a leviathan, a “nanny state,” dispensing “entitlements” which not only stifles entrepreneurship. Rewards without effort undermine the sense of shame.

This is the smug, know-nothing agenda of America’s first anti-American president. Can America overcome this degradation and restore its Judeo-Christian heritage?

Notes

[i] I do not ignore the influence of Locke and Montesquieu, whose mentality, however, is hardly conceivable apart from the Biblical tradition.

[ii] This paragraph (except for references to the Torah) is indebted to Professor Will Morrisey in an email to the author. I am especially grateful for his reference to the cultural aspect of the First Amendment.

[iii] Cited in Pathways to the Torah (Jerusalem: Aish HaTorah Publications, 1988), p. A6.2. See Paul Eidelberg, The Philosophy of the American Constitution: A Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (New York: Free Press, 1968; University Press of America, 1988, Appendix 2.

Source: Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 6, 2010.

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, history, politics, religion

Tagged , , ,

Why Ground Zero Mosque is Not Good for Islam or America

Posted on September 9, 2010 by | Leave a comment

No wonder Muslims around the world claim the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center project is bad for Islam. First, the original name proposed by Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf for the mosque, Cordoba House, is a throw-back to its Middle Aged namesake famous as a launch pad for Islam’s militant efforts of global domination. The term used for it is Jihad, which is more than just a religious concept of self-rule. It also is a term depicting militant religious conversion of all infidels or non-Muslims.

If peace with the Western world were actually the Rauf’s goal, why then has he developed a Shariah Index? Not to be confused with some of financial indexes, the purpose of his index is to measure how well nations conform to the Sharia law. It is a Western tool to make governments and cultures compliant to policy goals. The Koran provides the principles and Sharia law provides enforceable sanctions. After Muslims conquered Spain over 1,300 years ago, they launched their camapign to conquer the Western world from Cordoba. The Shariah Index shows Rauf’s intention is to launch a similar campaign to again conquer the West. However, this time Jihad comes in the deceptive form of tolernace, education, and peace.

The ultimate aim of Muslim clerics like Rauf is to convert the world to Islam. At Cordoba Spain, the victory was secured by militant Jihad. Peaceful co-existence came at the point of swords of Muslim rulers. Peaceful co-existence was the result of enforcing Shariah law upon predominately Christian Spain.

Amerincans and the West becoming aware of such relations between Muslim and Christians at Cordoba indeed would not be good for the Islamic cause.

Second, one of the primary financial backers of the Ground Zero mosque is Hisham Elzanaty, who has been a financial supporter of Hamas. Elzanty, an Egypian born New York medical supply dealer, also has gained noteriety for attempting to scam Medicaire. Don’t ask–don’t tell policy in Islamic circles may make it difficullt for fellow Muslims to distinguish between those who are committing “terrorism” and who are doing good social works, but to many Western onlookers their seems to be little difference. This is more than Islamaphobia or racism; it is just the proper kind of skepticism or maybe fear. (NY Post, September 3, 2010)

Third, and last, is the recent discovery that the U.S. government is funding the construction and renovation of mosques around the globe. Ancient Rome under Caesar did the same thing. Nicole Thompson, spokeswoman for the State Department’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP), stated the purpose of these projects:

“It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures. It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.” (Newsmax, September 6, 2010)

Notice, the Obama administration justifies spending millions of taxpayer money to fund foreign “cultural preservation” projects as somehow preservering our cultural heritage. Islamic cultural is not our culture. It may be Obama’s and Hilary may have adopted her assistants religious culture, but is not America’s culture. Christian culture and law our heritage. The U.S. is not the United Nations, but apparently, globalists like Obama think otherwise.

Obama’s official support of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center is a tell-tale sign of why it is not good for Americans either. Not only is federal tax dollars financing Imam Abdul-Rauf’s fundraising trips but state taxpayer money may also be given to underwrite the mosque. Obama’s diplomatic along with financial backing of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center gives legitimacy to the ancient dream of a global and triumphant Islam. (NY Post, August 10, 2010 and Reuters, August 27, 2010)

Leave a comment

Posted in history, news, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Freedom’s God

Posted on August 30, 2010 by | Leave a comment

By Daniel Downs

Last Friday, August 28, America commemorated the famous I Have a Dream speech of Martin Luther King, Jr. Throughout his pivotal protest speech, King alluded his religious faith, hope, and expectation of the freedom from oppression and the mundane challenges of realizing justice. He repeatedly referred to all people as God’s children. This expectant faith for freedom climaxed in the last three paragraphs in which King proclaimed:

… when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,

… “Free at last, free at last.

… Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

The negro spiritual directs us back to the source and beginning of social, economic, and political freedom. The God of the Bible. This God liberated the Jews from Egyptian slavery. He is the God of Jesus who was sent to set free those enslaved by addictions, poverty, immorality, despair, as well as effects of oppression. Yet, the liberated are not free from a life without God. That would to return to Egypt or to some other source of bondage.

Is that not exactly what America has done?

The struggle for freedom that Americans enjoy began long ago in halls of Western Christendom. The legal and theological struggle for justice resulted in a long history of natural law rights that included life, liberty, property, and happiness. They were not vague principles as some seem to believe. Legal battles, social conflicts, and wars were fought against those authorities intending to deprive the descents of Anglo-Saxons and others of their inherent and inherited rights. America is an inheritor and promulgator of that long fought heritage of rights law that was firmly rooted and legitimated by biblical principles and right reason, none of which was outside the social or political geography of Christianity.

That is why the Continental Congress established the United States of America by a two-fold covenant: a covenant with God and a social compact with all citizens. That also is why America was established by a two-fold legal compact: a document defining the nation under natural law, the Declaration of Independence, and a document defining the type of government to fulfill the objectives of the national definition including the protection of those rights and perpetuate the right so defined, the Constitution.

King’s promissory note analogy of rights based on the equality of human nature is part of America’s national definition. Thomas Jefferson knew America was already in trouble with God because Negro slavery was made an exception to that equality and the enjoyment of those rights. It was made an exception by removing the clause from the national definition that would have ended slavery forever. Jefferson apprehension of divine judgment for this came to pass. Both the Civil War and the violence during the Civil Rights movement were proof. War, natural disasters, and similar tragedy represented to divine judgment to nearly all early Americans. That was the consensus view of the citizenry and leaders of Christian America until at least the beginning of the twentieth century.

The language of Abraham Lincoln’s speech the Emancipation Proclamation parallels the Declaration of Independence invoking God’s favor for an act of justice rooted in the Constitution. However, that justice was defined in the Declaration not the U.S. Constitution. The 13th Amendment did not become law until 1865. The Emancipation Proclamation was given on January 1, 1863. The language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (1868) references the Declaration as well.

Freedom’s God is nature’s God. Nature’s God is humanity’s God who created them. God created humans with an equality of worth and dignity because human nature is a reflection of himself. God created them in his image and capable of his likeness. Natural rights are constituted in socialibility of human nature. Jefferson saw them as gifts of God. They are the goods of the promise land that had to be fought for and must be maintained by a strong defense.

Unfortunately, it seems that that defense has been weakening because the Supreme Judge of the world has been ignored. Maybe God had been ignored for such a long time because America’s intentions has not been rectifiable before the divine bar of justice and truth. Consequently, the Protection of divine Providence cannot be expected. In fact, America officially seems to disregard divine Providence even after disasters like 9/11, Katrina, the great economic recessions, and the like.

Nevertheless, freedom has always been and will always be a divine gift based on moral law and human conformity to it. Without God, freedom progresses to various forms of slavery.

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, history, news, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque

Posted on June 25, 2010 by | Leave a comment

by Raymond Ibrahim, Associate Director of the Middle East Forum

Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke “justice,” the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.

Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the “justice of our causes, particularly Palestine”; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: “Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?” (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Of course, that Osama bin Laden—slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest—exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising. Yet the reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero—that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden—also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.

The very name of the initiative itself, “Cordoba,” offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque “Cordoba” is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies “healing”—a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement certainly suggests as much:

Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.

Oddly enough, the so-called “tolerant” era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Rahman III (912-961)—well over a thousand years ago. “Eight hundred years ago,” i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids—ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda—were ravaging Cordoba, where “Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.” A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?

At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.

More pointedly, throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the “Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury” if there was “any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims,” for example, if he had dared pray there—this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)

Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, “Cordoba House,” it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word “house” suggests shelter, intimacy—coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean “region,” and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., “infidel region of war.” Thus, to Muslim ears, while “Cordoba” offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala’ wa al-Bara’, for instance).

Words aside, even the mosque’s scheduled opening date—9/11/2011—has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad—believers are exhorted to “kill and be killed”—and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosque’s planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A “new beginning,” indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists—mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization—on, of all places, soil sacred to America.

Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly “Western” region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor—a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.

Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches—that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony—are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.

Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.

Source: Pajamas Media, June 22, 2010.

Leave a comment

Posted in history, news, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , ,

Lesbian Bus Driver Berates Girl Over Her Christian Views

Posted on June 7, 2010 by | Leave a comment

In 2008, a lesbian bus driver was caught on video bullying a Christian girl. The video shows the repeated verbal attacks were elicited by the girl’s expressed views about abortion same-sex marriage. The girl’s father complained to the Indiana’s Carmel School District officials, but the school board officials defended the abusive actions of the lesbian driver. Attorneys representing the middle school girl and her parents have filed a lawsuit against the driver and the school system.

If the driver had been religious and had lectured a gay student for her views, the school board would have fired the driver as soon as the gay students parents had complained, and rightfully so. No school employee has a right to berate, belittle, or verbally attack any student for his or her views.

Based on other incidents over the past few years, it appears so-called gay rights trump the rights of all other Americans. This is nothing new. The end result of gay rights is as ancient as Semites like Abraham and his nephew Lott. The lesson taught by the story about Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18-19 of Genesis is that tolerance of immoral behaviors eventually results in zero rights except those approved by gays and their supporters. Gay rights is therefore just another subtle form of tyranny.

One bright spot in the history of tyranny is George Washington’s victory over gay British generals, womanizing British commanders, and partying officers. If it wasn’t for them, American liberty would have been a misty dream of past revolutions buried in a dusty grave with many hopes for thecommon goods of true justice. (Read God In The Trenches by Larkin Spivey for this part of American history.)

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, history, news, politics, religion

Tagged , , , ,

The Virgin Birth of Jesus: Is it a Reasonable Belief?

Posted on December 23, 2009 by | 1 comment

By Daniel Downs

Christians believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. The two gospels explicitly proclaiming the virgin birth of Jesus is Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-45. The most succinct statement of the Christian confession is the Apostle’s Creed, which is the oldest version of Christian confession. The Apostle’s Creed is as follows:

“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting.”1

The Apostle’s Creed originated in apostolic times and was a baptismal formula. As such, new followers of Christ confessed this creed to confirm their faith in the essential message of the gospels and of the church. The Apostle’s Creed is the foundation of all other confessions including the Nicene, Chalcedon, Westminster, and all other creeds. It is venerated by the Roman Catholic Church and by most Protestant Churches.

The clause of importance here is “Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.”

Liberal scholars and their followers deny the possibility of the virgin birth. Because other ancient religions claimed their saviors were virgin born or otherwise supernaturally born, liberals believe the early church adopted the myth probably to make the gospel more attractive to superstitious ancient people. This skeptical view might be true. However, what is often behind liberal skepticism is their outright rejection of the supernatural. Liberals tend to deny all of the miracles mentioned in the Bible, not just the virgin birth.

The Christian confession would be meaningless if the supernatural was not an experienced reality. As the Apostle Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) The faith was not an exercise in philosophy or superstition to allay fear of death. Faith is rooted in eye-witness testimony as well as personal experience. Faith is (was) based on seeing, hearing, feeling the the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of others. Healing and resurrection from the dead was an experienced reality during the apostolic era that continued well beyond the apostles’ witness to Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly ascent. In fact, healings and resurrections continue in our own time.

Even though the virgin birth of Jesus cannot be absolutely proved, it can not be disproved either. An appropriate question requiring a logical answer is whether it is reasonable to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Merely dismissing the possibility because one does not believe in miracles or the supernatural is as meaningless as blindly confessing the virgin birth is true. To answer the question, one must consider whether any historical evidence exists to support or refute the possibility of virgin birth. Is there any scientific evidence for virgin birth? If so, does the evidence prove the virgin birth? In addition, a search for evidence to support the reasonableness of Jesus’ virgin birth must consider any rational argument that might exist.

Skeptics readily supply a logical argument. However, from the outset, the argument against testimonials first defended by David Hume for miracles must be discarded. This argument states that the testimony of people who have presumably experienced a miracle is unreliable. It is unreliable primary because such testimony is not verifiable. Hume’s argument is no longer tenable because medical testing confirms divine healing miracles based on religious faith do occur. We can also eliminate arguments against resurrection because many have occurred. More importantly, they are being medically and empirical verified. Consequently, by eliminating those two arguments that confirm the reality of God and the supernatural, much time will be saved in order to focus on the primary argument: Is belief in the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?

A few observations from my past studies may be instructive. A number of years ago, I began searching for proof of the virgin birth of Jesus. I reviewed medical and scientific research on oocytology, regenerative medicine, genetics, reproductive behavior of animals and insects, neurology, paranormal science, and the like. Based on my less than infallible memory, I discovered research showing that virgin births do occur in nature. Moreover, medical research has proven men can have female type (XX) chromosomes of the 23rd pair just as women can have male type (Xy).

Since then, Frank Tipler wrote The Physics of Christianity. In this book, he shows how Jesus was virgin born. First, he notes studies that many researchers believe virgin births of humans are probably common occurrences. These medical scientist come to this conclusion because of the ease at which they are able to induce cell division of a woman’s egg without it being fertilized by the male component.2 Second, he explains three ways medical scientists propose human virgin births are possible. He argues for the one in which a woman’s XX chromosome is inserted by the male SRY gene. This hypothesis is preferred because almost all known males with an XX 23rd pair of chromosome also have an inserted SRY gene.3 Another reason is the genetic studies of both the Shroud of Turin (Jesus’ burial cloth) and the Oviedo Cloth (another burial cloth that was wrapped around his head).3 Third, he discovered in the latest genetic study of the Oviedo Cloth clear evidence of an XX male with the SRY gene inserted in the 23 chromosome pair.4 Four, Tipler also explains how Jesus could be directly descended from King David. As a descendant herself, Mary could have inherited the genes of David and his progeny. Because the Y genes of an XX male must come from one or more male ancestors of Mary, the X chromosome Jesus inherited could have had inserted into it most of the Y genes of David’s lineage.5 Thus, Jesus would have been a genetically legitimate descendant of David.

Assuming the Shroud and especially the Oviedo Cloth were in fact Jesus’ burial cloths, we can conclude that the virgin conception of Jesus by a creative act of the Spirit of God is a reasonable belief. And, assuming Mary was in fact a descendant of David, it is reasonable to believe Jesus was the heir of David prophesied about by the Hebrew prophets. Being rejected by the leaders of his time may have prohibited him from fulfilling his destined place on David’s throne, but it did not hinder him from becoming the light of the world–the ultimate plan of God for His Servant-Son.6

Notes:

1. James Orr, “The Apostle’s Creed,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 1, at www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html.

2. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity, NY: Doubleday (2007): 167-168.

3. Ibid., pp. 171-173.

4. Ibid., pp. 181-187.

5. Ibid., pp. 174-175.

6. Luke 3:23; many scholars believe Luke gives Mary’s genealogy. The promise to David recorded in 2 Samuel 7:13-16; Jeremiah 33:14-22; Isaiah 9:7 has yet to be fulfilled, but Isaiah 49:5-9; 53-1-12; 9:6; Rev. 12:5 is being fulfilled.

1 Comment

Posted in Bible, Christmas, history, science

Tagged , , , , ,

Wonder of Christmas Transcends War and Worry

Posted on December 23, 2009 by | Leave a comment

By Gary Palmer

Christmas holds different meanings for different people. For most of us, when you get past the stress of shopping and decorating, there is a sense of peace and joy and just plain childlike wonder at Christmas that transcends everything else. And nothing elicits those feelings quite so well as hearing Christmas hymns.

In fact, at least for a short while, a Christmas hymn stopped a war 95 years ago and restored a sense of humanity and common decency to the combatants on both sides. Known as the Christmas Truce of 1914, on Christmas Eve the stillness of a cold moonlit night was broken by the voices of German soldiers singing “Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht” from their trenches.

Across No Man’s Land, the British rewarded their German enemies’ rendition of “Silent Night” with enthusiastic applause and cheers, which the German carolers acknowledged with equally enthusiastic bows. The British then reciprocated by singing their own hymns.

Graham Williams of the London Rifle Brigade recalled, “They finished their carol and we thought that we ought to retaliate in some way, so we sang ‘The First Noel,’ and when we finished that they all began clapping; and they struck up another favorite of theirs, ‘O Tannenbaum’. And so it went on. First the Germans would sing one of their carols and then we would sing one of ours, until when we started up ‘O Come All Ye Faithful’ the Germans immediately joined in singing the same hymn to the Latin words ‘Adeste Fideles’. And I thought, well, this was really a most extraordinary thing – two nations both singing the same carol in the middle of a war.”

At one point in the line, a German soldier played Handel’s “Largo” on a violin. The simple words and music of Christmas hymns, although sung in foreign tongues, transformed enemies into brothers. British soldiers realized that the men across the battlefield were not the barbaric Huns depicted in British newspapers. The hymns had the same effect on the Germans. One German soldier reported hearing “… a Frenchman singing a Christmas carol with a marvelous tenor voice. Everyone lay still in the quiet of the night …. We all kept our guard, only our thoughts flew home to our wives and children.”

Along parts of the line, British soldiers snapped to alert thinking an attack was imminent when they saw unusual lights beginning to appear at portions of the German lines. To their delight, the Germans were placing Christmas trees adorned with candles on their parapets. “English soldiers, English soldiers,” shouted the German troops, “Happy Christmas! Where are your Christmas trees?” Amazingly, German soldiers left their trenches and approached the British trenches bearing gifts which the British heartily accepted, offering gifts of their own in exchange.

The unofficial truce also gave the combatants an opportunity to bury the bodies of dead comrades who lay in the mud of No Man’s Land. At one funeral, soldiers from both sides gathered to honor the fallen by reading the 23rd Psalm, once in English and once in German, followed by reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

Those soldiers realized that none of them had any real enmity toward one another. In fact, some exchanged names and addresses and became life-long friends after the war. They were fighting each other because their government authorities ordered it so and they had to obey. As they laid their comrades to rest, heads bared in tribute, soldiers from both sides confessed to each other that they had no desire to fire another shot.

On Christmas morning, worship services were held above both lines of trenches. British and German chaplains intermingled to lead mixed congregations in prayer and the singing of hymns. Robert de Wilde, a Belgian artillery captain, joined an improvised mass held in a barn. “The soldiers were singing,” he remembered. “They were singing: ‘Minuit Chretiens’, ‘Adeste Fideles’, ‘Les anges de nos campagnes’, all the songs we used to sing when we were little.”

Just like the Christmas hymns the soldiers sang to each other, the songs we hear in our churches, our homes and on the radio should remind us of what Christmas is really about. It is about celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace, the coming of the One who can transcend the madness and mayhem of war as well as the fear and worry over a bad economy.

It is not the power of Christmas hymns that does this, it is the love God expressed through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ that can affect hearts, even the hearts of war-hardened enemies who on a cold Christmas Eve 95 years ago crossed their lines to wish each other a Happy Christmas.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Leave a comment

Posted in Bible, Christmas, history, religion

Tagged , , ,

Southwest Ohio Liberty Conference Wrap Up

Posted on December 3, 2009 by | Leave a comment

The Southwest Ohio Liberty Conference held on November 21 was a huge success. Even the Ohio State – Michigan game wasn’t able to keep away those who understand just how dire the times are for our nation as a republic, said event coordinator Andy Myers.

The first speaker, Mr. Harold Thomas of The Ohio Republic Blog, gave a incredible powerpoint presentation outlining the “true” history of states’ rights and debunked the idea of secession as something that should be looked upon as taboo. Harold took the audience on a exciting historical journey that began with the Magna Carta (1215) continued through the formation of our national compact and the civil war between the states and ended in our present “Empire,” which shows how states are now merely “tools” of federal government run amok. Thomas concluded that states must enforce their 9th and 10th amendment powers before it is too late.

Jason Rink, co-founder of the Ohio Freedom Alliance, also used a powerpoint presentation to educate the audience on Free Market Capitalism and the cause as well as effects of how we got to where we are today. Beginning with currency based on a gold standard to the current paper currency solely based on the arbitrary standard of government edict, the government created a monetary system through which the wealth of many has been transferred to few. Now as then inflation is still the primary means. During his in-depth presentation, Rink showed how central bankers such as the private Federal Reserve through inflation and a fiat or paper currency have consistently debased the value of our nations wealth. That is why he and other like him are working hard to effect the return of a gold and silver backed currency. Ohio Honest Money Act is one of their efforts to make it reality.

Kevin Cullinane who built and runs The Freedom Mountain Academy rounded out the conference with some good old common sense and true world history. “History is a good teacher of truth” said Mr. Cullinane, “the problem is with those who would like to see our freedoms destroyed have been working hard in subverting true world history.” Trained by the First Special Forces Group in psychological warfare and head instructor of the 1st Marine Division’s counter-insurgency school, Kevin explained how ideas and philosophies have been “turned on their heads” over the centuries to get patriotic Americans to “worship the state” instead of choosing true liberty. From the “Pledge of Allegiance” originally composed by socialist Francis J. Bellamy to the Communist Manifesto’s 10th plank; “state controlled education,” Kevin methodically exposed how many of principles of what was once a free republic being destroyed by infiltrators from within.

Many people in attendance said they would like to see another conference held soon.

Many also appreciated having State Representative Jarrod Martin (R-70) and County Commissioner Marylin Reid present for the celebration of Liberty. These events are for everyone including our elected officials,” said Ohio Freedom Alliance Regional Coordinator Andy Meyers.

Source: Ohio Freedom Alliance, November 24, 2009.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, events, government services, history, news, Ohio, politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Unlimited Taxation by Unlimited Government

Posted on November 27, 2009 by | 1 comment

By Daniel Downs

What do you think of the constitution? What is the purpose of the constitution? Do you know how many there are? Are they based on a particular view or philosophy?

Those are not questions only lawyers, law professors, and politicians should know how to answer. All American citizens are supposed to know the answers, but do we?

A constitution defines a form of government by detailing its authority, powers, functions, and procedures of operation. As such, a constitution limits government to its explicable roles. According to historian Merrill Jensen, a large number of early Americans wanted the first and current national constitution to give broad general powers over most of American governance and life. They wanted to duplicate British Imperial governance over which they would preside and through which they would continue to profit. A greater number of Americans, who remained faithful to the purpose of the Revolution, persistently thwarted every British loyalist strategy. That occurred during the making of the Articles of Confederation. Ten years later, the same federalists achieved a number of their goals with the ratification of our current Constitution.

The imperial aspiration of the federalists was given a severe blow with the establishment of the 10 amendments to the Constitution. The last two amendments ensured that the liberties won during the Revolution were not lost to a federal take-over of the nation. Both the natural law rights of the American people and the sovereignty of their states were guaranteed a lasting existence–at least until the now.

Journals written by James Madison and others during the constitutional conventions prove the illegality of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all other organizations incorporated by the federal government. Members of the constitutional conventions debated the incorporation of a federal banking system for a long time, and the majority decided against it. One result of violating this denial of legal authority has been an indirect tax by means of inflation created by the Federal Reserve on behalf of the federal bureaucrats and national corporations.

At the U.S. Treasury and on Wall Street, this form of unlimited taxation is called growth.

State sovereignty has been under threat by the federal government for a long time. One of the clever tricks employed by followers of the democrat regime of Franklin Roosevelt was the manipulation and prolongation of an economic crisis to achieve their goals. The same is happening during the current depression-like crisis. Because only states has been obligated by law to balance their budgets, the federal government, which is not obligated to do so, uses federal aid (stimulus) to gain consensus for their current policy agendas.

Who do you think will wind up paying for all of that aid? Taxpaying consumers will pay for it and for at least two reasons: (1) Federal aid comes with the strings attached. They will help states if states will support their political agendas, like health care reform. (2) Because the federal government intends to take from the wealthy to help pay for their socialist programs, wealthy business owners will pass the cost on to consumers. That is one way the federal government increases the indirect tax called inflation.

Those are a few reasons why everyone should invest the time to better under the history and meaning of the Constitution and the intended protection of our rights and liberty under a Supreme law of the land.

If interested in learning more, you will find valuable information at the websites of the following organizations: www.ohiofreedom.com, www.campaignforliberty.com, www.tenthamendmentcenter.com, and www.constitution.org.

1 Comment

Posted in economy, history, politics, taxes

Tagged , , ,

Giving thanks to God for the free market? Thankgiving history

Posted on November 26, 2009 by | Leave a comment

Thanksgiving Day is undeniably a government established religious holiday. From its historic origin at Plymouth Colony to President Lincoln’s official declaration of “… the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

As you gather with family and friends this national day of Thanksgiving to give thanks to Almighty God for His blessings on America, you should also give thanks for Governor Bradford and the Pilgrim settlers of Plymouth Colony. They established the spiritual foundations for our nation and, after a miserable failure with a socialist system, they wisely laid the free market foundations which ensured our prosperity as well.

It is generally known that the Pilgrims suffered terribly through their first winter in America with about half of their members dying from sickness, starvation or exposure. Even though Squanto and other friendly Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow corn and helped them with hunting, trapping and fishing, the harvest of their crops had yielded barely enough to support the colony. In the fall of 1621, although things were still very tough, they were thankful for what they had and declared a three-day feast which they shared with their Indian friends who contributed deer and wild fowl. The following year, the Pilgrims again failed to produce enough food to adequately sustain them.

William Bradford, the first governor of Plymouth Colony, recorded that the colonists struggled because they refused to work in the fields. After that first winter, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each of the surviving families and “… all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” which they produced were to be deposited into a common storehouse and that “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” This meant that each member of the community was entitled to take what they needed regardless of how much or how little they contributed.

As Governor Bradford recorded in his journal, this effort to spread the wealth around the Pilgrim community “… was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” In other words, there was no incentive for people to work any harder than necessary.

After the dismal harvest of 1622, Governor Bradford recorded in his journal that “… they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” As a result, Bradford and the Plymouth elders scrapped socialism and adopted a free market plan that allowed the colonists to own their land and the means of production and to keep what they produced to feed themselves or for trading. The harvest of 1623 proved that such market incentives work. Bradford wrote, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any other means the Governor or any other could use ….”

Bradford acknowledged “… instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.” Socialism in Plymouth Colony was a complete and tragic failure. After the colony implemented a free market system, Bradford wrote that from that point “… any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, the harvest of 1624 was so plentiful that colonists were able to start exporting corn to England. (Source: email from Family First on November 25, 2009)

* * * *

In a more punctuated account, the editor of The Lighthouse made this drew this conclusion about the Puritans’ experience at Plymouth Colony: “Once families were allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, the food shortages vanished. In short, the Pilgrims learned that prosperity requires individual effort, and individual effort requires individual reward. And we are the beneficiaries of that lesson.”

* * * *

As important as that lesson is, more important is learning how to prosper under the free market laws of God over which He rules. This is not measured by dollars and cents but by the moral standards of truth, justice, mercy, charity, and faithfulness. Our actions towards others supply the funds for our eternal loss or gain.

The Madoff’s and Enron managers of the world are examples of making the wrong moral investments. They lose in both the free market of corporate finance regulated by government and in the free market of God.

Yet, all of us have reason to give God thanks for his unfailing practice of the same free market laws toward us. He seems always willing to forgive us of both our debts and our crimes as well as to bless our bountiful prosperity. In this, we expectantly hope for eternal returns.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, history, politics, religion, Thanksgiving

Tagged