Category Archives: religion

Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration

By Gary Palmer

On November 20, 2009 a group of nationally known and respected Christian leaders set forth an historic declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a long overdue message from men and women of faith to all those in political power from state and local governments to the federal government and its myriad bureaucracies. The Declaration focuses on three foundational principles of justice and the common good on which the signers will not compromise: the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions; the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

The Declaration states, “Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.”

Obviously, this is a direct challenge to the power of the government at every level but especially the federal government under the current dominant liberal regime. In an interview with Katherine Lopez of the National Review, Dr. Robert George, one of the principal authors of the Manhattan Declaration, said that important decisions are now being made, or soon will be made, by state and federal government on the issues addressed in the Declaration.

Dr. George said that as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections there is unprecedented strength in both houses of Congress and in many state legislatures to push laws that advance the abortion agenda, that seek to legalize same-sex marriage, and that threaten religious liberty. In fact, some Christian groups have already come under assault.

In May 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston ended its 103 year ministry of providing adoption services to place foster children rather than comply with the Massachusetts state law that required them to place children with homosexuals. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is threatening to take action against Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic college in North Carolina, because the college refuses to include insurance coverage for abortion and contraception in the college’s health insurance plan.

While both of these involve Catholic institutions, they could just as easily be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or any other denomination.

Lopez later asked Dr. George how the White House should take the Declaration. He responded, “I hope that President Obama will understand that the signatories to the Manhattan Declaration are determined to defend the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and respect for religious freedom. On these issues, they cannot compromise, and they will not remain silent.”

The Declaration’s signatories understand that the principles of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and religious freedom are under threat from powerful political and cultural forces in our nation. They want it understood that, as Christians, those who sign the Declaration regard these principles as non-negotiable, and will therefore be unceasing in their defense of them. A critical line of the declaration states, “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

In explaining why he signed the Manhattan Declaration, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky wrote that he signed it “…because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.”

Dr. Mohler was referring to the last lines of the Declaration that should be regarded as a solemn oath by all who sign it, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.” Mohler then added, “I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all.”

The opportunity to stand with other believers of such courage and moral clarity is why I signed the Declaration.

You can read the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org.

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.

Wonder of Christmas Transcends War and Worry

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.

Dr. King’s Christmas Sermon

By Fr. Frank Pavone

On Christmas of 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. preached the following words: “The next thing we must be concerned about if we are to have peace on earth and good will toward men is the nonviolent affirmation of the sacredness of all human life. Every man is somebody because he is a child of God…Man…is more than…whirling electrons or a wisp of smoke … Man is a child of God, made in His image, and therefore must be respected as such…And when we truly believe in the sacredness of human personality, we won’t exploit people, we won’t trample over people with the iron feet of oppression, we won’t kill anybody.”

Christmas is a marvelous celebration. I love the festivity and decorations, the music and the meals. Christmas celebrates the greatest gift that we receive, Jesus Christ, and should therefore be a season of great festivity.

But in receiving such a tremendous gift, we receive a correspondingly great obligation, namely, the duty to welcome. Christ comes, but he does not come alone. He brings his love, but in doing so, he brings us the burden of loving all whom he loves. Yet his yoke is easy, his burden light, for he gives us also the power to love all whom he loves.

Christmas, therefore, takes away the option of excluding people from our love. God has a face now, and in that face we understand the dignity of all who share human nature, including our brothers and sisters in the womb.

We also understand that all who share that human nature belong to the One who takes that nature upon himself at Christmas. This Feast makes it clear that no human being can own another, or oppress another. Now, one of our brothers in the human family is God. To claim to be able to own or oppress anyone who shares a human nature is, therefore, to claim to be able to own and oppress God himself.

Vatican II taught, “By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being” (GS, 22). Hence The Gospel of Life states, “It is precisely in the “flesh” of every person that Christ continues to reveal himself and to enter into fellowship with us, so that rejection of human life, in whatever form that rejection takes, is really a rejection of Christ” (EV #104) and again, life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself (EV #9).

Fr. Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.

The Christmas Friendly Retailer List

StandforChristmas.com offers one of the best ratings list of Christmas friendly (and unfriendly) major retail chain stores.

The five most Christmas friendly retailers are Bass Pro (98%), Cabela (95%), Land’s End (89%), KMart (85%), and Sears (82%). The five most anti-Christmas are The Gap (82%), Best Buy (77%), Banana Republic (75%), American Eagle Outfitters (70%), and Old Navy (57%).

Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of the God’s light of redemptive justice, hope, and peace to all humanity.

To see the entire list and/or learn more about Stand For Christmas, go to www.standforchristmas.com.

Giving thanks to God for the free market? Thankgiving history

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.

Church’s Critics Want Gag Rule

Getting Nancy Pelosi to accept a health care bill that bans federal funds for abortion was the greatest victory scored by U.S. bishops in a generation. It also unleashed an unprecedented attempt to censor them. Their latest enemy is Geoffrey Stone writing in the Huffington Post.

Stone finds it troubling that the bishops are so vocal. He yearns for a time when JFK was president, a time when separation of church and state met his approval. Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?

As the following list discloses, Stone is hardly alone in trying to censor the bishops: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Frances Kissling, Planned Parenthood, Feminist Majority, Catholics for Choice, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Organization for Women, and many others favor a gag rule. On Nov. 12, Nancy Snyderman of MSNBC spoke for many when she said that “This is going to be a Pollyannaish statement. The Catholic bishops appearing and having a political voice seems to be a most fundamental violation of church and state.” Brilliant.

The following is a partial list of religious groups that want abortion coverage in the health care bill: Rabbinical Assembly, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, Episcopal Church, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, North American Federation of Temple Youth, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Women of Reform Judaism, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Lutheran Women’s Caucus, Christian Lesbians Out, YWCA.

So why don’t Stone and company want to gag these groups as well? Let’s face it: they don’t have a principled bone in their collective bodies.

Source: Email newsletter of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, November 13, 2009, comments by President Bill Donahue.

High School Valedictorean Denied Student-Initiated Free Speech Right

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case of a Nevada girl whose religious freedom was harshly denied right in the middle of delivering her 2006 public-school valedictorian speech. This is an alarming push backwards for religious freedom. We have a Supreme Court ruling from 1992 (Lee v. Weisman) that protected religious messages and prayers of students, including at graduation ceremonies, as long as they are student-initiated.

A press release by the Rutherford Institute states school officials stopped her speech “after she began speaking about the part her Christian beliefs played in her success in life. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had asked the Court to hear the case of Brittany McComb, charging that school officials violated McComb’s free speech rights and engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they censored her speech because of its Christian content.”

The harsh rejection of Christianity and basic religious freedom is the 11th reason to remove your children and grandchildren from the government school system, according to family advocates at SaveCalifornia.com. (See Reasons 1-10 at their special website RescueYourChild.com.)

Minister Threatened for Promoting Religious Liberty

After announcing the “Rally for Religious Free Speech” an event to challenge the recent Hate Crime Bill signed by President Obama, Rev. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, a sponsor of the event, received a threatening e-mail saying, “I’ll be in Washington on the 16th and I know what you look like.”

“Because of the recent domestic terrorism at Ft Hood and the documented escalation of threats of violence by homosexual activists against Christians, we are taking all threats very seriously and reporting all such threats to the FBI,” said Dr. Gary Cass.

In the fallout after Maine’s voters recently rejected homosexual marriage, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality has documented the increasing violent threats against Christians.

“We will not let the homosexual activists intimidate us,” said Dr. Cass. “It just makes us that much more determined to stand for biblical truth and to pray for God to grant them repentance and find forgiveness in Jesus Christ.”

The Rally for Religious Free Speech will occur on Monday, November 16th at 1:30 in front of the Department of Justice in Washington DC. Ministers from various denominations will be preaching the biblical truth about homosexual sin.

The rally is intended to assert the right to preach in the public square the truth about homosexuality because the hate crime bill has had a very chilling effect on religious free speech. Under the bill ministers can be investigated and convicted by the Federal Government for incitement to hate crimes simply by preaching the Bible.

The event will start with a press conference and a letter will be presented to AG Holder to express the multiple constitutional concerns the hate bill raises. Matt Staver of Liberty Council will be representing the group. After the event in front of the DOJ a prayer vigil will be held outside of the Human Rights Commission.

Source: Christian Newswire, November 11, 2009

Why Darwin’s propagandists oppose the book The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Propagandists for Darwin’s theory often claim their opponents are unscientific. They claim their opponents never offer science an alternative theory. They criticize their critics for their continual criticism. This is true of Eugenie Scott, PZ Meyer, Richard Dawkins, and the like.

I have noticed one so-called creationist work often mentioned and criticized by Darwinian propagandists. That work is The Mystery of Life Origins: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olson. Therefore, I bought that book and have been reading it.

While reading the first chapter, I began to realize why this book is a problem to Darwin’s propagandists. First, a better sub-title for the book would be Reassessing the Current Theories of Chemical Evolution. That is the actual subject of the book and for good reason: its authors are all professional chemists, evangelists or philosophers. Second, these authors identify the scientific community’s problems with chemical evolution, the statistical improbability of the evolution of cellular life by random chance, the lack of evidence for evolutionary predestination based on finding life on other planets, and the most troubling problem is with the nature of information available to and present by origin science theories.

Quoting preeminent scientists like George Gaylord Simpson, philosophers of science like Karl Pooper, and the prestigious scientific journal like Nature, the authors demonstrates the evolutionary theory of origins is mere speculation, which is exactly the claim made by Darwin’s propagandists against Intelligent Design. If you have watched the documentary Expelled, then you know they also admit they do not know how life actually began.

Consequently, the theories of Creation Science and Intelligent Design are as scientific as is the theory of Evolution to the extent the scientific community (meaning academia, big business, and government) produces and allows observational research by which to verify various theories. To test the plausibility of any theory and its inferences, real scientific research and publication of findings is required; but if it is prevented by the status quo in academia and society, academic and intellectual freedom is denied.

That is the underlying issue of the Evolution v Creation debate. It’s about philosophical views and the suppression of intellectual freedom. It’s bad politics as the many court cases hindering academic and freedom. According to Darwinian propagandists like Eugenie Scott, these cases presumably prove that the Creation Science and Intelligent Design theories are just religious theologies pretending to be science. Decisions of judges are not scientific judgments either.

The belief in a Creator of the material world and that the Creator intervenes in nature to direct or repair it is not illogical. To the members the Continental Congress of this nation, it was self-evidently rational. For a magnificently complex universe and life in it to come about by random accidents was self-evidently irrational. The proposition of Darwinian evolution that life developed by random chance mutations is still illogical as well as unproven. Complex machines do not just assemble themselves by accident. They are purposefully made according to a predetermined design according to ability and knowledge (information).

I have also noticed that all Origin theories, even the Genesis account, always assume preexisting material, organism, or universe from which our world and life in it came into existence. Both name elements and components, describe processes, identify sources, and employ reason and observation. Prior to Darwin and the rise of atheistic secularism, scientific discoveries were expected to give scientists and society a greater understanding of the Creator and his purpose(s) for creation. That is why religion is not a hindrance to science. On the contrary, it is only a hindrance to unethical scientific agendas.

If as David Bohm theorizes, the entire blueprint of the universe and all forms of life exist in every part of nature. Then, its source must have been very intelligent and skillful. Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins speculate that an intelligent being or being could have been the source. Others called that being God. For still others, their personal experience of God verifies their belief. Seeing that millions of people around the world for two millenniums have repeatedly have experienced the same verification, should not God then be regarded as an empirical fact?

Sources: Eugenie C. Scott, “American Antievolutionism: Retrospect and Prospect” in Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, Michael Ruse and Joseph Travis, eds., Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press, 2009): pp. 370-399; Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, DVD, directed by Nathan Frankowski (Universal City, CA: Vivendi Entertainment, 2008); The Mystery of Life’s Origin (Dallas, TX: Lewis & Stanley,: 1984): pp. 1-7.

Note: I found “Evolution” at the Xenia Library but I could not find “Mystery,” but I did find it at the downtown Montgomery County Library. Other Greene County Libraries have “Expelled,” but the Xenia Library seems to prefer to spend tax dollars on Evolution.

Why Christians Should Be Politically Involved

Many followers of Jesus Christ believe political involvement violates the commission of Jesus. Liberals criticize strong conservative Christians for not sticking to the spiritual work of redeeming lost souls. They suggest that by staying out of politics right-wing Christians will better their nation. Instead, Christians should work to transform government and culture by reforming individual hearts and minds.

During this season of left-wing dominance over American politics, liberal Christians want America to believe that their views represent the best of both heaven and earth or rather the best of both the spiritual and the secular. The problem with liberals is their rejection of the underlying tenets of the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is supposed to result in a more godly view and subsequent lifestyle. By replacing the rule of God’s law with the rule of pseudo-religious secularism, liberals also reject the power of God over all aspects of life. This is the opposite goal pursued by America’s Puritan founders.

But, what is the gospel? It is often summarized as the good news about God’s offer of forgiveness for past sins based on the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Jew Jesus. His death is the divine means to the complete satisfaction of God justice. Moral crimes against the natural law of the Creator must be punished. The punishment stated in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 set the standard of punish for all sin. The prophet Ezekiel reiterated this when he said, “the soul that sins shall die.” Jesus’ apostle, Paul, expanded on this aspect of God’s law and justice in his letters to the Christians in both Rome and Galatia. As the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates, separation of right relationships, including the natural relationship with God, spouses, and alienation from others, is the essence of death.

If one thinks about it, liberals have been its champions promoting every form of death and its misery imaginable in American society and around the world for decades.

By the pain of death and by his descent into hell for the sins of others, Jesus temporarily suffered the permanent punishment for all our moral crimes against God’s law. By resurrection and ascent to throne of God, Jesus precedes those who accept God’s gracious offer as the federal head or representative. His ascent to God’s throne is also his reward because he was given the authority and legal oversight of his redeeming work, which is why Jesus is Lord over the rule redemptive justice.

The commission given by the resurrected Jesus to his Church was to make disciples of all peoples. At the very least, this commission means Christian are to represent God’s purpose and will to all people. The message of redemption and grace presented by the gospel of Jesus is that justice has been fully satisfied for one purpose only: that individuals and nations may choose eternal life under God’s rule of law.

Yes, it does mean a kind of theocracy; one based on the natural and moral laws of God. A study of the Puritan colonies and early history of state laws gives us an idea of what that would be like.

It also means laws sanctioning the restriction and punishment of immoral and unjust behaviors. In the American colonies, the enactment of such societal laws required citizens educated in the discipline of self-government. As often stated in early American literature, liberty meant the freedom to do what is right. It was the opposite of doing your own thing no matter how right it might feel.

The rule of law is a political principle rooted in the biblical law as well as natural law. Human nature as created by God is the basis for both. Both are the result of human experience with God and other humans in society. Because the gospel represents the fulfillment of the requirements of divine justice, the commission of Christians is to serve the God as ambassadors of His kingly rule. Only kings rule by law over their kingdom of citizens. Citizens are people invited by kings to enjoy the benefits of and the obligations to the King. Those who do so are citizens of good standing and those who don’t are rebels and enemies.

It should be obvious that the Creator of the universe has an unalienable right to rule over all. This is a self-evident right. If humans can do what they will with their creations, the Creator of human nature even more. That is why Darwinian evolution and its resulting atheism (or secularism) has to dominate the view of public institutions. One of the primary means to that end is the fabrication of the wall of separation of church (religion) and state by the American judicial system and its members like the ACLU. This contemporary view, however, is antithetical to the majority decisions of both the U.S. Constitutional conventions and later Congresses. In other words, federal courts and its members continually violate that First Amendment as it was originally argued and defended by eighteenth and nineteenth century Congresses.

Christians cannot separate their “religion” from their social or political involvement. They can not because it is their life. Their lives are politically ordered under the rule of God and His law. Christians are political representatives by definition of their membership in the kingdom of God under the Lordship of Jesus. Christians have no other choice other than to be politically involved. Their involvement must present the purpose and interests of God and Christ rather than their own. That must be first on their list of their priorities followed by family, nation, and self-interests.

Christian are also citizens of the nations in which they were born or now live. Although loyalty to the kingdom of God does not conflict with their being good citizens in their respective nations. Yet, genuine Christians have pledged their lives to the Kingship of God, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and to good citizenship in the divine kingdom. Allegiance to the United States or any other nation is secondary. Loyal citizenship to a secondary political entity is only a problem when a nation’s laws and policies contradicts the law and objectives of the kingdom of God. Just as Americans inherited freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly from those who had fought the arbitrary rule of unjust monarchs for centuries, Americans also have inherited the weaponry by which those rights were won. God’s law was and still is the primary legitimating sword in the fight for liberty and justice.

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone succinctly summarized the prevailing view of man-made law prior to the rise of secularists in both Britain and America. He wrote:

“No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [God’s Law].” (Vol. I, p. 41)

To reiterate, loyalty to God’s kingdom does not necessarily conflict with good citizenship in America or any other nation. Conflict arises when a nation’s law and practices violate the laws of God and conflict with His objectives.

It must be concluded that American Christians are obligated as citizens and representatives of God’s kingdom as well as members of the American body politic to decisive involvement in shaping political and all other aspects of life according to the divine plan. Anything else is treason.