Some were calling for a complete apology from Pope Benedict XVI after his remarks last week regarding Islam.
They didn’t get the full apology they wanted. Should they have?
The Pope, as you know, quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that is new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Muslims were angered by his remarks and took to the streets in Indonesia, Turkey and Syria. Christian churches were attacked in the West Bank and an effigy of the Pope was burned in Iraq. And a man was shot dead in Somalia.
But the Muslim religion is said to be a religion of peace.
Yet the issues the Pope raised, that true faith and right reason are never in conflict, are worth reviewing. He was actually saying that force is intolerable in advancing God’s Word.
This whole episode strikes a clear distinction between Christianity and Islam.
Remember that after nearly 300 years of persecution, including being fed to the lions in Rome, the Christians conquered the Roman Empire. They did so by living the Gospel, preaching the Word and dying for their faith.
It was Islam that came out of the desert to conquer the Holy Land, North Africa and Spain in less than 100 years. And they conquered by the sword.
In his book, “The History of Europe,” J.S. Roberts writes, “Islam from the start has been a religion of conquest.”
It was after this that Urban II encouraged the First Crusade to end the abuse of Christians and re-capture Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher. Muslims and anti-Christians view these wars as wars of aggression, yet these crusades used the same means to re-capture as those used by Caliph Umar when he conquered.
Until our time, the Western world has not apologized for the Crusades. In fact, General Dwight Eisenhower even titled his memoir, “Crusade in Europe.”
For centuries the European Christians fought off the Islamic world. From 1492 until the 19th century, Europe reclaimed that which had been forcefully taken by Islam.
Now, in our time, the issues that Pope Benedict has addressed have reared their head again.
In Afghanistan this year a Christian convert was threatened with beheading for apostasy. In Indonesia, Nigeria, and Sudan, Muslims are at war with Christians, in the Middle East with Israelis, in Chechnya with Russians, in India with Hindus and in Thailand with Buddhists.
Their faith seems to be the primary motivator.
And, are you aware that in the U.S., Islam has the freedom to preach their religion and proselytize converts to Islam without retrospection, yet in Islamic nations, conversion to Christianity or even preaching Christianity, usually means death.
In America, a militant secularism that demands acceptance under the guise of tolerance is well under way. The attempt to de-Christianize America has brought us to a point where we are not only suffering near strangulation from political correctness, but our only outrage seems to be toward a Congress and a President that is simply trying to protect us from the attacks of Islamic terrorists.
The “New York Times” yesterday in their editorial entitled, “Rushing off a Cliff,” said of the House approval of the bill on Detainees said, “Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve mindless politics of a mid-term election.” It continued. “The bill will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws – while doing nothing to protect our nation from terrorists.”
The outrage should be directed toward those who seek to kill us, rather than toward a Congress and a President who intend to protect us. And toward the imams who preach hate to their children, not toward the Pope who is simply trying to help everyone understand that Christianity married faith and reason and thereby precluded the principle of “jihad” as it is being violently carried out in the 21st century.
Thank God for the resolve and perseverance of President Bush and today’s Congress. And no, I don’t think the Pope should apologize.
What do you think? Vote in Faith & Freedom's new poll. Click here. ______________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
Americans are sometimes surprised to learn that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. In fact, the word “church” doesn’t appear in the Constitution.
No Constitutional restriction was ever placed on the church by either the Founding Fathers or the Constitution they crafted.
Rather all Constitutional limitations were imposed on the role of government.
It was in 1802, thirteen years after the Constitution was first adopted, that Thomas Jefferson used that phrase.
The Danbury Baptist Convention had heard a rumor there was some movement toward a national church or national religion. They were very opposed to the idea, which was in fact just a rumor, and contacted Thomas Jefferson about the matter.
In his letter of response, Jefferson used the phrase, “separation of church and state.”
Jefferson’s letter to them, assuring that was not going to happen, said in part, “I contemplate with Sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between the church and state.”
Keep in mind that Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, nor was he a member of Congress in 1789, nor a member of any state legislature or ratifying convention at anytime relevant to the passage of the First Amendment. He was actually serving in France as U.S. Minister throughout this entire time.
Also, since Jefferson was speaking to a Baptist group, he probably borrowed the metaphor of the “wall” from an earlier letter written by Baptist leader, Roger Williams, who wrote, “When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath err broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will err please restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.”
According to Williams, the “wall of separation” was to protect the “garden of the church.”
Jefferson had seen that letter and without doubt was using the same metaphor.
Today, that phrase has been stood on its head and used by secularists to remove religion from our public experience.
Jefferson also wrote, in 1808, to another clergyman. In this letter, he went to great length to explain that he understood the church to be protected from the government by the Constitution. He said, “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”
The courts often cite the metaphor of “the wall” as a definitive interpretation of the meaning of the First Amendment.
Its importance is greatly overrated.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, “There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build the 'wall of separation’ that was constituted in Everson [referring to the court case]. No amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The ‘wall of separation’ is a metaphor based on bad history … history must judge whether it was the father of his country in 1789 or a majority of the court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the establishment clause.” (Wallace v. Jaffery).
The revised idea of “Separation” has become a useful tool for those who seek to strip every vestige of Christianity from our society – but it was never what our Founders intended.
What do you think? Vote in Faith & Freedom's new poll. Click here.
__________________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
In a continuing attempt to “normalize” homosexuality, we are now hearing a new twist on an old perversion.
Rosie O’Donnell, taking full advantage of her new position of influence provided by Barbara Walters and ABC, last week introduced a new version of “gay.”
After showing “The View” audience a clip of Oprah Winfrey and her friend, Gayle King, struggling to pump gas while driving cross-country this summer, a “Thelma and Louise” excursion they had recorded for the Oprah Show fall premier, Ms. O’Donnell said, “I think that’s very typical of gay relationships – not saying their gay.” Then Rosie, speaking to Oprah as though she was present, said, “You might be a little bit gay … you’re just not doing it.” (AOL News, ABC News).
A “little bit” gay?
A majority of America, including the liberal Northwest, do not approve of gay marriage. After stinging defeats to enshrine gay marriage into law, gay activists have publicly committed to re-grouping and taking a longer view of advancing their agenda. According to their own comments, that includes re-educating the next generation and discussing the gay issues publicly until people become more aware and consequently more comfortable with their agenda.
But it isn’t just Rosie O’Donnell.
Former New Jersey Governor, James McGreevey has now written a book about his homosexuality. He has succeeded in polarizing people in both the media and the gay community, But, he has them talking.
Ken Anletta, media critic for “The New Yorker,” called the memoir, “A fraudulent book and a fake.” He said, “Essentially, this book puts him forward as some sort of civil rights leader, which is ridiculous.” (ABC News)
Mark Segal, publisher of the “Philadelphia Gay News,” says he’s a hero, but Guido Sanchez, director of a New Jersey gay groups isn’t so sure that he’s a hero.
From the reviews I’ve read, the book seems to chronicle a pathetic, confused person who needs help.
However, it is the comments of his so-called lover, Israeli Golan Cipel that once again introduces us to this new kind of gay.
Cipel recounts the night that he was sexually assaulted by McGreevey. He told the “New York Daily News,” “There was this moment when I asked him, ‘Why did you think I was gay?’ And he said, everybody’s a little bit gay.”
From the uni-sex movement to the gay rights movement, there has been a consistent attack on the natural order of natural law.
The uni-sex people pushed the idea that we are all the same – no difference between men and women. The gay rights movement is again pushing the same agenda, with comments like “there are no boy toys or girl toys” to first graders.
Except now we’re hearing that everybody is “a little bit gay.”
The ancient words of the prophet Isaiah, in describing a person who’s eyes and heart have been shut so they cannot see or understand, correctly describes that person by saying, “A deceived heart has turned him aside; and he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, ‘Is there a lie in my right hand.” Isaiah 44:20.
Saint Paul described the same condition in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans.
Stay close to the eternal principles of natural law and to the God who created them.
_____________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
The comments of Hugo Chavez at both the U.N. and again last night at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem, reminded all of us of the quality and character of those who rise to power and dominate countries and individuals from time to time.
Had a leader from any other country come to Venezuela and made similar remarks about Chavez, one can only imagine what the outcome would have been – but then it doesn’t matter, because no one would be given that kind of freedom of speech under his regime anyway.
While examples of hypocrisy among our own so-called progressive, secularist “elite” are abundant, the incident gave us yet one more example.
New York Democrat Representative Charles Rangel gave us an example of the hollow nature of the extreme left.
After Chavez’s attack on President Bush, Charlie, correctly testing the political winds of the moment, rose to speak for all of us. He said, “Any demeaning public attack against him [President Bush] is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.” (Fox News).
But wait a minute. One year ago, almost to the date (Sept. 26, 2005) Charlie Rangel compared President Bush to the late Theophilus “Bull” Connor, the Birmingham, Alabama police commissioner who came to symbolize Southern racism in the 1960’s.
Rangle made his statement at a town hall meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus held in Washington. He was faulting Bush for his response to Hurricane Katrina where he said, “George Bush is our Bull Connor.”
Charles Barron, a Democrat who represented Brooklyn on the New York City Council and was with Rangle agreed and said, “George Bush is worse, because he has more power and he’s more destructive to our people than Bull Connor will ever be.” Barron continued, “A KKK without power is not as bad as a George Bush with power.”
This is yet another example of how the so-called “elite” will say anything at anytime if they feel it will give them a political advantage.
I’m sure in the days to come, Mr. Rangle will explain all this and we will come to understand that he is not a hollow reed blowing the in the political wind seeking political advantage, but rather a man of unwavering convictions and deeply held beliefs much like his other colleagues on the left.
______________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
As a kid growing up in the Yakima Valley in Washington State, I heard a lot of discussion about Democrats and Republicans. The debates usually centered around issues related to the fruit and farming industries. With hands in the air and sometimes fists on the table, the older guys would debate the issues and neither could believe the other was a member of their respective party. Then they would vote and move on to address their common needs.
But that was a long time ago.
Many of the same issues still exist, but in many cases, they have been marginalized by a new and malicious discussion.
It seems to me it took on new intensity when George W. Bush was re-elected for a second term. The emphasis began to move from politics, as they relate to issues, to what one believes, and that led to the politics of hate.
While the two parties, Republican and Democrats, continue to function as they have for decades, there is a redefining process that is leading us toward our lowest and least, not toward our highest and best.
It is the politics of hate.
A few weeks before Howard Dean was elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he said, “I hate republicans and everything they stand for.”
Moveon.org ran a television ad that likened Bush to Hitler. In one of the ads, Hitler appeared shouting in German with the translation subtitled on the screen. He was saying, “We have taken new measures to protect our homeland. I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Then Hitler’s face slowly morphs into the face of George Bush saying, “God told me to strike at Al-Qaida, and I struck them and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” The ad ended with the words “Sound familiar?”
But the defining statement was made by former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, Robert Reich. He wrote the article for “The American Prospective,” a liberal magazine. I discovered it quoted in an article in “Christianity Today.”
In the article entitled, “The Last Word. Bush’s God,” Reich says, “The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the west and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief,” he writes.
Then, this is his closing paragraph:
“The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.”
Reich wrote later that year, in December, “For three hundred years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them.”
The liberal, secularist message seems strangely close to the ancient conversation in the Garden of Eden where we heard the phrase, “If you eat of this fruit, you will be as God.”
The secularist message is not new with Reich and all the other extreme left-wing folks in America. Our kids have been given this message at universities and colleges for the past couple of generations. They have been told they were not “enlightened” or “elite” if they didn’t forsake the traditional, Biblical values of previous generations, including most of our Founding Fathers.
People from Karl Marx to Michael Moore have been preaching that message. Except today, is has become more violent and hateful.
Only yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stood before the U.N. and called President Bush, “The Devil.”
President Bush, whatever he is or isn’t in his policies, does claim to be a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ. For that reason, I believe, he has become a lightening rod for hate from not just a political party, but by a group of people who believe, “The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modern fanatics.” The anti-modern fanatics would be Christians who believe in the inspiration of the Bible and its inerrancy. That Jesus Christ is God and that He was born of a virgin, lived and taught on this earth, was crucified and was resurrected on the third day.
I would be one of them.
When Christians and people of faith take a position against enshrining same-sex marriage into our law, the secularists say that is hate and bigotry. When people of faith object to abortion because they deeply believe that God is the giver of life and that abortion is killing life, the secularist say we are trying to impose our religion on them. And when Christians want the freedom to express their faith in the marketplace, we are called fanatics who are seeking a theocracy.
While all of the above is catagorized as “hate” speech or “hate” actions, Jonathan Chait, one of their favorite secularist columnist is writing, “I hate President George W. Bush. I hate the way he walks. I hate the way he talks. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.”
Perhaps terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.
Patrick Henry, one of America’s Founding Fathers said, “When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains.”
The battle is not about politics or even natural law, but rather a rebellion against the God who created natural law.
God help us.
__________________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
Despite late filings by three candidates, name confusion, and media support for Susan Owens, Steve Johnson gathered enough votes to be listed on the ballot for the Washington State Supreme Court Position #2 in November.
The vote count, as of this morning, gives Stephen Johnson 33% and Susan Owens 45%, thus ensuring their names on the general election ballot.
A great deal of confusion, purposefully intended I believe, was created when three candidates announced the night before the filing deadline in late July.
Particularly confusing was candidate “Michael” Johnson, who along with Richard Smith and Norman Ericson, ran no legitimate campaign.
As recent as yesterday afternoon a couple of voters told me when they were actually in the booth voting, they paused at the two Johnsons, wanting to be sure they voted for Stephen.
It looks as though John Groen has lost to incumbent Gerry Alexander for the Justice Position #8 and Jeanette Burrage has lost to incumbent Tom Chambers for position #9.
Faith & Freedom will be announcing a new educational effort over the next few days that will include a piece on the Johnson – Owens race and extensive voter guide information on the Washington Statewide races in the November election.
__________________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
Rosie Says Radical Christianity is like Radical Islam
Rosie O’Donnell shocked viewers and some of her colleagues on Barbara Walter’s show “The View” this past Tuesday by describing radical Christian and radical Islamists as the same.
She said, “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”
Both Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Joy Behar, also regular personalities on the show, were taken back. Behar said, “There’s a difference, this group is threatening to kill us.” Hasselbeck said, “We are not bombing ourselves here in this country.”
This is one of the most stupid things I have heard anyone say on a major (ABC) television network.
To suggest that there is no difference between radical Muslims who kill and seek to kill Americans – every day, and Bible-believing, activist Christians, is unbelievable.
Equally unbelievable is the lack of outrage from those who espouse diversity and tolerance.
Had Rosie (a gay activist) or someone else made similar comments about minorities, homosexuals, or some other religion, there would have been outrage, apologies by Walters and ABC, and would have probably resulted in her being fired.
Ironically, as Rosie was making her outrageous and prejudiced comments about Christians on network television, the ACLU, on the same day, was attempting to kill yet another student-led Christian prayer meeting on the campus of New Mexico State University.
Peter Simonson, executive director of ACLU of New Mexico said the ACLU is representing three Muslim athletes who say they are being discriminated against because other athletes are praying a Christian prayer.
On the same day yet another case was before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans where the ACLU filed a challenge to a school board’s right to open their meetings with an invocation.
And on that same day, the ACLU was suing on behalf of a Wiccan priestess who wants to say an opening “whatever” for a board of supervisors meeting in Virginia.
Something is very wrong with this picture. There is an incredible double standard in both the quagmire of political correctness that is choking this country and the willing accomplices in our judicial system.
Unlike radical Islam, we Christians function within the law and work through the established political process to bring about change.
This next Tuesday, in Washington State, is a great opportunity to create change. Please participate.
___________________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
The American Legion, a national veteran's group which has been around since World War I, has thrown its support behind PERA (Public Expression of Religion Act) which will be coming up for a vote in Congress within the next week or so.
Joe March, national spokesman for the American Legion, said their organization is calling on all members of Congress to make sure the bill gets a vote right away.
He said, "The Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It appears that every effort is being made to remove every vestige of our religious heritage from public places, including veteran's memorials. Indeed, the ground at Normandy Beach has thousands of crosses marking the resting place of our fallen heroes and that land is considered U.S. government property."
This bill, when passed, will be very helpful in cases such as the dispute over the Korean War Memorial on Mt. Soledad in San Diego. As you know, the ACLU has been trying to remove the large cross at the war memorial.
The city of San Diego had been ordered to remove it from the public property or be fined $150,000 per day for violation.
March said, "They can really bully local governments with these types of cases because local government can't afford the fees that they know would be incurred if the ACLU were to win, so they buckle under the pressure and make a deal up front."
School districts are coming under the same assault by the ACLU and other similar organizations. It has been extremely lucrative for these organizations, while they have eroded our free expression of religion synonymous with America's heritage.
A few anti-religion, anti-Christian activists have made considerable progress during the past 20 or more years in removing any expression of religion – particularly Christianity, from the public experience.
Now, the tide is turning. A large majority of Americans favor public expressions of religion.
The radical ACLU has made millions of dollars as activist judges have awarded tax-payer dollars and attorney’s fees to the ACLU lawyers in cases where they were attacking such things as religious symbols, veteran’s memorials, and even the Boy Scouts of America.
Indiana Republican Rep. John Hostettler is now moving a bill through the U.S. Legislature that will put an end to much of the anti-religion movement by cutting off a major source of money to the ACLU and similar organizations.
It is anticipated that the bill may come up for vote within the next week.
Faith & Freedom is joining other organizations in asking everyone to contact your Representatives and ask them to support the Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679 and to encourage Majority Leader Boehner to schedule a vote on legislation.
It is rare when former President Bill Clinton and the media are at odds, but they are.
ABC, as you may know, will be airing a mini-series on 9/11 this Sunday and Monday, September 10th and 11th, entitled, “The Path to 9/11.”
Clinton is angry and is demanding that ABC “correct all the errors” or pull the drama entirely.
The New York Post obtained a copy of a letter to ABC boss, Bob Iger, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation and Douglas Bond, a lawyer from Clinton’s office, in which they are demanding that certain aspects of the program be changed because it is a “fictitious rewriting of history.”
At issue are a couple of scenes; one is where an FBI agent and a CIA operative complain about red tape frustrating their attempts to pursue terrorists with a reference to the President as “Bungle Bubba.” The movie then cuts to a close-up of Clinton maintaining that he did “not have sex with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky,” suggesting that the sex scandal was distracting him from the bin Laden threat.
In another scene, Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, denies authorization to CIA agents about to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.
While ABC is promoting it as “an epic mini-series event” a number of former Clinton administration members are in a panic.
Here’s the curious part:
ABC boss, Bob Iger, put out a statement today saying that they are still editing the final product and nobody will see the final edit until it airs.
If you watch the mini-series, as millions will, you might watch closely when these scenes appear – if they do.
It’s interesting to me that Clinton’s reputation could still demand so much attention and care while the reputation of President Bush is attacked regularly without regard or hesitation by the same media folks.
My guess is – the film about the assassination of President Bush will continue to get press and tacid approval from the media, while they spend today and tomorrow re-editing Clinton’s roll in “The Path to 9/11.”
But then, I guess it all depends on what “is,” is.
_________________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
Columnist Joel Connelly at the Seattle P.I in his column published last Friday titled, Move to Push Our Courts to the Right, said, “In the most brazen claim so far in this election season, the judicial ‘guide’ published by Faith and Freedom Network states, ‘Please use for educational purposes only. These are not endorsements.’”
Mr. Connelly proceeds to say he sees a hi-jacking of his faith under way and that is harmful to church, state, and community, asks if our Judeo-Christian tradition is summed up in the narrow, exclusivist agenda of gay marriage, adoptions by gays and benefits for homosexual couples and asks what about church teachings on social justice and the passage from I Corinthians, “But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
He asks, “As the religious right storms the temple of justice in Olympia, where are the defenders of church-state separation?” He also asks “Where are the advocates of a Judeo-Christian tradition that embraces love, learning and social justice?”
I respect Mr. Connelly’s right to his own opinion and that of the Seattle P.I., I assume, but I must respectfully disagree.
What about the advocates of a Judeo-Christian tradition that embraces love, learning and social justice?
There is not a more loving and generous nation on earth. When natural disasters occur around the world, the first responders are Americans, bringing food, supplies and money. We have come to know the names of many of the organizations who lead in these efforts – Northwest Medical Teams, Mercy Corp, World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse and others. Several of these organizations are headquartered right here in the Northwest and all were founded by people of faith – deeply held faith.
These organizations are supported by the same churches and individuals who stood in mass on the Capital grounds in Olympia on March 8, 2005 in support of traditional marriage and nearly filled Safeco Field in support of traditional marriage. These are the same people and churches that circulated Ref. 65 petitions and are presently circulating judicial voter’s guides.
When we think of love and compassion, we must think of the many hospitals that have been built in communities across America. A quick look at the names of these facilities will often reveal the motives and mission of the people who built them – St. Elizabeth, Emanuel, St. Vincent, St. Francis, Providence, Presbyterian, Baptist, Adventist and so on.
Learning has always been at the heart of people of faith. In fact, one of the most abiding concerns of the earliest Christian settlers in this country was education – not just for the elite, but for every child. These Christians brought us our first printing press and with their hard work and generous giving, gave America our first 126 colleges, including the very first, Harvard.
In fact, Noah Webster, considered by many to be the father of public education in America, held deep religious convictions and did not see any incompatibility between Christianity and government.
He once said, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed – no truth is more evident to my mind than that Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
People of faith, both then and now, hold a deep commitment to learning and education. People of faith today simply question the content of education and often ask why the rush to distance ourselves from the philosophy and methods of our Founding Fathers. The largest and most effective private schools in our state are built and administered by Christian churches. The same churches who circulate petitions and voter guides.
Americans who have been fed the false dictum of absolute separation of church and state will probably be surprised to discover that even the first four of the Ten Commandments, those having to do with man’s “religious” duty toward God, was once included without question in the law of America.
It is well-documented that American law grew out of Biblical law and principle.
Episcopalian theologian, T.R. Ingram has said, “Christian men have always known that what we might call political liberty as part of all Christian liberty is a consequence of upholding the common law – the Ten Commandments.”
Samuel Rutherford, John Witherspoon, John Locke, and William Blackstone had a profound influence on American law and the writing of the Constitution.
Rutherford believed in government based on the absolutes of the Bible and his presupposition was realized in Colonial America through the influence of John Witherspoon and John Locke.
Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were framed in this philosophical environment.
The Declaration of Independence, for example, is structured upon a Judeo-Christian base in two fundamental ways. First, it professes faith in a “Creator” who works in and governs in the affairs of men in establishing absolute standards to which men are held accountable. Secondly, there is the idea that man is a fallen creature and therefore can not be his own lawgiver and judge. In the end, it is God to whom the appeal must be made. In this sense, the law cannot be simply what a judge says it is. It must be what God says it is.
I know of no leader in the faith community who wants America to become a theocracy.
The people who gave us the Founding documents of this great nation are much like the people of faith today.
The Biblical principles that gave us social contract and the most free and prosperous society in the history of the human race are the same principles that allow people to worship freely or not at all in today’s America.
It is these principles that people of faith embrace today. People of faith do not hate homosexuals nor is their “Judeo-Christian tradition” summed up by current gay issues.
Knowing and understanding the past has given people of faith a clear vision of what the future must be, if we want this great country to continue in blessing and prosperity.
_____________ Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
Not that it directly affects us here in the Northwest, but the fact that a lawsuit has been filed in Florida seeking more transparency for judicial candidates, certainly tells us that people want to know more about the candidates and what they believe.
Four previous suits have been filed regarding judges sharing their views on judicial voter’s guides in Kentucky, Kansas, North Dakota, and Arkansas. All of those suits were decided in favor of the judge’s right to share their views.
In each of these cases, it was the liberal, secularist groups trying to suppress information.
Since these groups are in the minority and do not represent the views and beliefs of mainstream America, their best effort is to keep the lights off or attack those who turn on the lights so people can actually see what a judicial candidate believes before they are on the bench – not afterward.
For too long, judges have been elected in an atmosphere of secrecy, with the majority of people knowing little to nothing about them.
One can only wonder if or when the other side will attempt to silence our own educational campaign regarding the judicial candidates in Washington State.
QUICK LINKS
