The Constitution and Sharia Law

     Over the past week, much has made in the media about comments by GOP Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson concerning a Muslim running for President of the United States.  So that we are clear on exactly what he said, I would like to reprint the exchange between Carson and Meet The Press host, Chuck Todd...

TODD: Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on [with] Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a president's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.

CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?

DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.

CHUCK TODD: So you--

DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

      Now, I'm sure if Dr. Carson could have that moment back, he would have elaborated on his answer, or explained it in more depth, as he has attempted to do in ensuing interviews.  As he has spelled out in the last few days, he would have no problem with a Muslim President, as long as the candidate denounces Sharia law.  And, I for one, believe that is what he meant by a potential candidate's faith being consistent with the values and principles of America.
     But that is precisely why he is still under fire ... and I have to agree with him.  From everything I have read about Sharia Law, it is not compatible with the fundamental principles of ruling our behavior in this country -- let alone being in harmony with the Constitution.  And I think that a lot of the backlash Dr. Carson has suffered is because either the Elite and the Media don't comprehend the consequences of Sharia Law in this nation -- or they understand it quite well, but are adhering to the same old tolerant, politically correct playbook.  Either way, I fear that they are misguided.
     But you don't have to take my word for it.  You can read the words of Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a Doctor of Internal Medicine with a master's degree in cognitive psychology and educational techniques.  According to his own biography, Hamid was a member of a radical Islamic organization, Jamaa Islameia JI (of Egypt), with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri, who later became the second in command of Al-Qaeda. After being radicalized in the JI (approximately thirty-five years ago), he had an awakening of his human conscience, recognized the threat of Radical Islam, and started to teach modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts.
     Make no mistake, Hamid is still a Muslim, but he wrote this in an article regarding Dr. Ben Carson's warning about Sharia Law:  “I can state unequivocally that Dr. Carson is correct. Without a single exception, the approved Islamic literature teaches violent principles such as killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for sexual purposes.”

     So does Sharia Law look like, sound like, or resemble the Constitution in any form or matter?  I think not.  Our Constitution was written with specific goals in mind:  to form a more perfect union of the peoples of this nation; to establish justice for all;  to ensure domestic tranquility; to provide for the common defense; to promote the general welfare; and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and future generations.
     From all I can ascertain, Islamic (Shariah) Law was made to protect five things: (religion, self, mind, offspring, and property), which the Koran says are the main rights of humans in this life.  But it  is the "violent principles" of Sharia Law that Dr. Hamid says are taught in order to protect these rights that are not only "necessary rules of the religion" [of Islam], but "fly in the face of the Constitution".
     And besides considering both Hamid and Dr. Carson's comments, one must examine the facts in a  World Net Daily article:  There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. (And that doesn't include the recent push for additional Middle Eastern refugees urged by the President and the UN).  
    The WND article also included a May 2015 poll by The Center For Security Policy that revealed the following:  a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
     In addition, the article showed that more than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.  Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
     So, why all the outrage and condemnation over Dr. Carson's comments?  You may not agree with him, or like his non-political and honest answer.  But can anyone legitimately say that there is no foundation for his concerns?  Where are the ardent feminists and those who celebrate the Supreme Court's recent ruling on gay marriage -- especially, when sharia law in Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Somalia, Iraq and Iran approve the death penalty for homosexuals, and women are subjugated citizens? Do they really think they will get an "Americanized" version of Sharia Law in this country?
     And why aren't those who always scream about "separation of Church and State" agreeing with Dr. Carson?  If they are being intellectually honest, it seems to me they must admit that Sharia Law would be a far more oppressive influence on our culture and society than Christianity.  Would these folks protest the restrictions that Sharia Law wants to impose on our society as much as they object to a nativity scene on the public square?
     During a Fox News video poll regarding the Constitution and Sharia Law, the most common answer given by American Muslims was the following:  “The Sharia law is made by God — by Allah; the Constitution was made by people.”  In case you don't get the implications of that statement, I believe those that wish Sharia Law to be above our Constitution would like to see it not only supersede our founding document, but replace it.
     Now, I happen to believe that our founding documents were greatly influenced by Christian-Judeo beliefs and principles, and Sharia Law is in direct conflict with the freedoms of both my faith and my country’s governing laws.  Apparently Dr. Ben Carson feels the same way, and it is refreshing and crucial that men like him have the courage to stand up and defend Christianity and the Constitution.
     All we have to do is look at Europe to see what the metamorphosis of our nation might look like.  Now is not the time for political correctness and compromise.  I say, "Bravo" to Dr. Carson for single-handedly standing for the uniqueness and sovereignty of our nation.  May God continue to give him the courage to be bold and speak the truth!

1 Timothy 2:16   "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."

   
   

Kim Davis And The Apostle Paul

     Just as in the case of the refugees storming the borders of Europe, there is no easy answer to the situation involving the County Clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  Kim Davis has made her position clear:  she can’t comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide, because it conflicts with the vows she made when she became a born-again Christian.   “To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.”  So, she has chosen to go to jail rather than disobey her conscience.
     Naturally, her life as a Christian has come under review ... the multiple marriages, the questionable births of her children, the controversy surrounding her exorbitant salary.  It is not my purpose to judge her or question her faith.  Ultimately, we must accept her statement that she "surrendered her life to Jesus Christ" four years ago.  Rather, the purpose of this blog post is to ask ourselves, "What would we do in her place?"

     Like many of us Christians, Davis is faced with a quandary ... God's moral law conflicts with the laws of the State (in this case, the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriages).  But she works for the State, therefore it is reasonable to ask, "Should she be forced [within the jurisdiction of her job] to do something that goes against her religious convictions"?  At the same time, it is also rational to ask, "If you cannot perform the duties that you took an oath to uphold, why not quit your job in order that you do not go against your moral beliefs"?
     It is not up to us to question Ms. Davis's faith.  She has stated that her conscious will not allow her to  violate the vows she has made to God when she recognized Jesus as her Savior.  Those vows amount to a personal oath to God, Himself.  Now, the federal judge in this case has acknowledged that oaths mean something ... and he maintains that her oath as a federal employee trumps her oath as a Christian.  But what if the circumstances of the oath she took to perform her official government duties has changed since she initially took that oath?  What should be her course of action?
     To be honest, I have struggled with what I would do in her place.  Those who think she's gone too far in her objections to performing her official duties will point to the following passage in Romans 13:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

     "See!", they'll say.  "The Bible tells her to do her job.  The Supreme Court's decision was appointed by God. She is resisting God's directive, and now she's in jail, which is the judgment she has brought on herself."  But is that really what Paul is saying?  Our home church group recently studied the Book of Romans, and when you study Romans 13 within the context of history and what Paul was warning about, it really has great relevance for us today.

     Just prior to this well-known letter to the Christians in Rome, Paul had stated at the end of Chapter 12, that he wished them not to take revenge, to leave the way open for God’s vengeance, and to “overcome evil with good.”  So what, exactly, was Paul seeing at this time that he followed this verse with the Romans 13 command to be subject to the governing authorities?
     History tells us that Paul was planning to visit Jerusalem, where there were many political tensions.  The Romans viewed Christianity as a “superstition” and bad for society.  (Sound familiar?) They believed that proper "piety" to the Roman gods helped to sustain the well being of the cities and their people.  (We could liken that to bowing down to today's secular god of political correctness). So it is within this context that Paul is writing about obedience to civil authorities.
     Emperor Claudius reigned until 54 AD, and Jews were causing so much civil unrest that he had them expelled from Rome (Acts 18:32).  After Claudius, Emperor Nero came to power in 54 AD (at the age of 16), and it might have been him that Paul had in mind when writing the Romans 13 letter.  Remember, before this, the Christian Church and community was thought of as a group of dissident Jews.  (Jesus had been brought before Pilate for “disturbing the peace”). Now, under Nero, Christians begin to be distinguished from Jews, and are becoming a target.
     Just how much of a target would become evident in the later accounts of Nero clothing Christians in the hides of beasts and letting them be torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed.  But perhaps Paul is seeing the trend that has been set by Claudius and that Christians, under Nero, are becoming a target.  He is warning them to “play it cool” so to speak, and obey the authorities, not calling attention to themselves.
     From this historical context, here is how my thoughts are running ... the primary focus is on the individual citizen and how we are to react to governing authorities … do what is right to avoid God’s wrath and punishment and vengeance (Verses 4- 5) … he is God’s servant for your good (Verse 4), appointed by God.  Now, I don't see where these verses specifically address the idea of a bad or evil governing authority.  Perhaps because even the bad ones are appointed by God to discipline us?  And even if that’s the case, we are to act righteously, as verse 5 tells us …. as a matter of principle and for the sake of our conscience.
    So, can we agree that although government authority is established by God, and is good in itself, it is sometimes used in an evil way?  Is Paul telling us that Christians should not fight against the government, repaying evil for evil, but are to respond with good behavior?   I believe that the Apostles were faced with very similar decisions as Ms. Davis (and with which we will all be subject soon), and the choices are slim:  1) As long as government is consistent with Christian duty, they are to be obeyed – even when oppressive, or 2) What if the government fails in their duties to do right according to Godly principles, and what if they restrict the freedom to worship our faith?  No earthly power can force us to go against God… it is our responsibility to God to resist.  If the government commands a sin, then we have to disobey.  This directive is apparent in Acts 5:29 when Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"
     As you can see, there is no clear-cut answer!  I think this is something that each Christian must decide for himself, according to his/her conscience after seeking an answer from God as to how they are to proceed.

    I have often written in this blog that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor in WWII Germany, made the decision that his conscience bid him to get involved with a plot to assassinate Hitler.  He felt strongly led that he must stand up to the greatest evil in his time, even if it meant he advocated the murder of another man.  But he prayed that when he stood before God, the Lord would understand his heart and his motives. Evil must not be allowed to stand!
     Kim Davis has taken two oaths; one to her Father in Heaven, and one as part of the governing authorities established by God.  Which one does she owe allegiance to?  She must violate one in order to perform the other, and she has been forced to choose.  The Bible tells us not to make oaths without considering the possibility of future ramifications.  We see what happened to Jephthah, the Judge of Israel who made an oath to sacrifice the first person he saw on returning home from battle, if God would deliver the Ammonites to him in victory (Judges 11).  It cost him the life of his only child, his precious daughter.
     But when Kim Davis took her oath in office as a Kentucky County Clerk, this is the oath she took:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of County Clerk according to law;".  At the time, she could not foresee the rapid road we have taken to legalize gay marriage.  So, she has made the decision to go to jail rather than concede.
     If you read all the various opinions on her decision, you will see people calling her everything from a modern saint to a hypocritical, belligerent, and aggressive Christian.  I cannot know who she is in her spirit, but I think I can understand her choice for this reason:  the only biblical reason for violating an oath is if the objective of the oath is sinful.  If, as a Christian, one can never bind himself to sin, her oath as a civil servant is invalid from its inception and consequently, is not binding.  Does that give us our defining answer?  I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that, but it certainly is a valid point.  Furthermore, I think that this circumstance should be a warning to each of us.  We must be forming our own Biblical standards and what we understand to be the Holy Spirit's counsel on this matter.  Because, just like the Christians in First Century Rome; Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Hitler's Germany; and Kim Davis in rural Kentucky --- we are all going to have to decide where to draw the line in the sand in our obedience to our God.

1 Corinthians 4:3-4   "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me."


   

Bible or Constitution?

     That was the question presented to Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson on this week's Meet The Press.  I find it interesting that more of these political news shows are beginning to consider questions presented by the public, from such sources as Facebook and Twitter, for instance.  Although these questions can be more illuminating of a candidate's positions, and tend to be more original and authentic than those presented by the MSM hacks, they can present no less of a trap for the respondents.

     And that's the position that Dr. Carson found himself in, when host Chuck Todd asked him, "Does the Bible have authority over the Constitution?”  Now, before you give a knee-jerk answer, stop and consider this ... was that question a trap?  Knowing that Dr. Carson is a religious man, was it designed, not to gain information, but with a view to reproach him in some way or other; so that no matter how he answered it, he would incur the resentment of one side of the argument or the other?  Was it wise of Dr. Carson to avoid stating a concrete position, and instead, point out that the answer to the question is "not so simple"; that the question must be asked in context, "about a specific passage of the Bible and a specific portion of the Constitution"?
     OR, could there be a deeper significance to the framing of the question ... such as a subtle effort to point out that neither the Bible nor the Constitution have any authority in our land?  And if they no longer exert any power or influence, who should be in control?
     The point of my blog today is not to justify or condemn the way Ben Carson chose to answer the question, but to ask you to consider your own position, and look at the significance of who has authority.   When it comes to the laws of this nation, how do you view the authority of both the Bible and the Constitution?  Is one superior to the other?  Is it possible for them to work together to govern this land?  When the Constitution was written, did the Founding Fathers give any consideration to the Bible?  I'm sure if you conducted one of those "man on the street" interviews tomorrow, you'd be hard pressed to get an intelligent answer to any of those questions; our ability to critically think through such philosophical questions has been seriously eroded.  But let's take a stab at it, and see what kinds of considerations we can apply.  After all, it is a crucial and consequential concern in these days, don't you think?
     Let me first say that I always find it revealing to scan through the comments on controversial subjects like this.  And as could be expected, they mostly fell into two camps --- those who felt that the Founding Fathers considered Judeo-Christian principles when drafting the Constitution, and those who defiantly maintained that we are now, and have always been, "a secular nation".  They even went so far as to assert that "there is not one mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity in all of the Constitution"... and they are right.
     The 40 names that are listed as signers of the U.S. Constitution are a mixture of secularists, Deists, and committed Christians; yet I contend that all would have agreed that the general principles of Christianity drove the desire for independence and individual freedom that resulted in the American Revolution and the subsequent need to form a model of government.  In response to why the Constitution is devoid of any Biblical references, I like the answer provided by Bill Flax, a contributor to Forbes.com:  "Perhaps, because as James Madison remonstrated regarding inserting “Jesus Christ” into earlier legislation, 'The better proof of reverence for that holy name would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion.' "
     I think it is quite evident that the Founders of our nation, through the Revolutionary War years, and the succeeding years of establishing a government, never intended for this nation to become theocratic, or a one-size-fits-all religious state.  It was never their intention to create a system of government in which the rulers reigned in the name of God.  That being said, I still contend that they wanted citizens to live their lives as free men, governed by a system of laws that was written through the Biblical prism; recognizing that Christianity's morals and principles were valuable in creating a stable social fabric.
     Need proof?  Consider these statements by some of our more famous Founders:  "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other" -- (John Adams).  "I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men" -- (Benjamin Franklin).  "By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]" -- (Benjamin Rush).  There ... I think I've made my point.  The Founders recognized that 1) our Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people, 2) whose affairs are governed by God, and 3) without the Bible as a foundational support, nations will eventually perish.
     So, back to our original question ... Does the Bible have authority over the Constitution?  While answering for myself, I must invoke my Biblical worldview, which influences all my decisions in life.  I believe that God is the Ultimate Authority in this world that He created.  But I also know that it says in His Word that He appoints rulers over nations by His authority, and we are to be loyal to that government... as long as they are loyal to God's laws.
     I truly believe that God was involved in the creation of our Constitution through the men that He put in authority.  At that time, these men foresaw a nation of individuals who were generally governed by Biblical precepts -- checks and balances and a limited government were at the center of the Constitution, and would serve such a Biblically-minded society well.  Then, as now, I believe that the Bible has authority over each of us as individuals, and the Constitution has authority over the government.  That combination has worked for us, and contributed to a generally balanced co-existence between the two powers, as long as we continued to embrace Biblical morals and principles.
     But as God and the Bible have become more irrelevant in our society -- indeed, despised -- we have seen that both the Bible and the Constitution have lost their place in the governing of our nation.     In fact, there is a third player in the game, and it is Government, with a capital "G".  Since our society seems to want to eradicate the influence of both the Bible and the Constitution, is this even a relevant question anymore?  Clearly, the Bible is being mocked, derided, and re-conceptualized to serve the needs of the ungodly.  And, in its tattered state, is there enough of the Constitution left to warrant any real authority?
     Perhaps the more appropriate question is this: Is there enough of the Bible's influence in the Constitution to withstand its destruction by the Government?  Ultimately, as a faithful Christian, I have to go back to the one Truth that overrides all ... YHWH is Sovereign, Supreme, and the absolute Head of this State.  His Word is authority over everything man-made ... whether it is a governing document like the Constitution, or a governing body of men.  That might not be the politically expedient answer to give in a national interview, but we are at the stage in this nation (and the world) where it is time to quit playing the political game, and recognize Who has the real Power in this world.  Imagine if we had a candidate who had enough courage and the fear of God to make that announcement!

1 Chronicles 29:11-12    "Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is Yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and You are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all. In Your hand are power and might, and in Your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all."

One Shoe Has Dropped... Will The Other Follow?

     Be honest.  Did you really expect a different decision on the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare subsidies?  Chief Justice Roberts had already telegraphed where his vote fell during his 2012 decision to uphold the law.
     I must admit that I am no political wonk or legal scholar.  My understanding of this law is greatly simplified.  But I'm smart enough to realize that this battle is not really about preserving health insurance for millions of Americans.  From the view of this average citizen, it is really about a battle being waged against middle class families, small business owners, and the senior citizens of this country.

     Here's how I see it ... these "subsidies", or tax breaks, or whatever disingenuous label you want to give them, are nothing more than increased taxes upon those who can least afford the extra burden of supporting those who cannot buy their own health insurance.  No matter how much high-minded discourse we hear that "everyone in America deserves to be covered by health insurance", or that "it is our duty to help those who need it most, or who can't afford it, or who have been denied access to it" ... it all comes down to this: where does everyone think that the money for these subsidies is going to come from?  Does anyone believe that the U.S. government has some secret stash of "health insurance subsidy funds" that will cover all these people?  And I'm not just talking about the millions of Americans who are on welfare and Medicaid.
     Has anyone figured out that all these illegal immigrants that are being fast-tracked to citizenship will also qualify for these subsidies?  Do you see where I'm going?  Millions of hard-working, tax-paying Americans are barely making ends meet, as they watch their own health insurance premiums sky-rocket.  Whether they pay for their health insurance directly, or they receive benefits through their companies, how long before the cost becomes just too much to pay for?
     The money has to come from somewhere to sustain the government's give-away program, and that always means higher taxes in some capacity.  If the real object of this law was to force us down the Socialist road, then the immigrant situation is playing nicely into that agenda ... more citizens who can't afford the health insurance that the law mandates they must have means more subsidies, which means more taxes and less individual freedom, as millions of Americans will be forced to abandon their small businesses and accept substandard insurance and medical care.
     Anyone who takes a serious look at these subsidies will realize that they do not accomplish what their proponents allege.  There are approximately 8.7 million Americans receiving an average of $272 subsidy a month to help pay their insurance premiums.  Anyone who has studied the costs of health insurance lately knows that this amount will likely purchase a policy with at least a $5000 deductible, depending on your age.  So what does this really accomplish, except a bill for $2,366,400,000 that must be paid for by the already burdened American taxpayer.  If a subsidized individual needs substantial medical care and cannot afford the deductible, then those costs will somehow be passed on to other insureds in the form of higher premiums.  Do you see that medical care in this country is in a costly death spiral?
     I, for one, simply cannot buy the argument that the subsidies are meant to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a disastrous decline in enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people, and premium increases by insurers.  Re-read the preceding paragraph if you are apt to fall for that false line of reasoning.  A mere $272 per month will not buy adequate health insurance, and it won't result in people getting better healthcare and remaining healthier.  And nothing is going to stop premiums from going higher.  The only thing subsidies will do is quicken the rate of the country's debt.
     Face it, folks.  The subsidies are inadequate, just as any proposed tax credits are.  This whole debate isn't really about quality healthcare for every American.  It's about breaking the backs of hard-working, self-sustaining Americans.  We knew it was coming, and the shoe has dropped.  In the next day or so, we will know how the same-sex marriage argument has been decided by the Supreme Court.  Will this be the final act that "transforms" America and rips apart the fabric of our nation?  Will it be the final act of disobedience that so offends God that He removes "the Restrainer", so that the full power of the Anti-Christ will be revealed and experienced?  It sure seems as if these days qualify for "the unrighteous deception", and "the strong delusion" that the Bible predicts.  And it certainly feels as if Evil is straining to be unleashed in all its full potential.
     Once upon a time, the Supreme Court stood as the referee in determining whether the President or Congress had strayed beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.  It now appears as if it has decided it can make up new rules, depending on the personal persuasions of the individual Justices.  But there is a Final Judgment coming, and it will be according to the One who will judge the living and the dead, and who will demand an accounting of their decisions against Him.  The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America would do well to consider that in their deliberations.

1 Timothy 5:21     "I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism."

The Best Defense Of the 2nd Amendment I've Ever Heard!

     I suppose the Sandy Hook tragedy will forever be used by the gun control crowd to further their talking points.  It's a conveniently emotional topic in which to rally support for more gun regulation and eventual transformation of the Second Amendment.  So, I wasn't surprised to hear it brought up again in an attempt to portray conservative Presidential candidates as the heartless gun nuts that the Opposition would like us all to believe they are.  But here is how you handle that trap ...
     Question:  In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%.  Did you go against the want of the nation, with your vote against Manchin-Toomey [which would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns]?  And also, how does public opinion shape your response to national problems?
     Candidate's Response:  You know there's an old line ... there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  You're right, that was a poll that was bandied around a lot, but you can find a lot of results in a poll, depending on how you frame the question.
     As you and I both know, we have a system of background checks in place right now.  When either of us goes to a federally licensed firearms dealer, there's a background check that is put in place.  What Manchin-Toomey was trying to do was extend that to every private sale between two individuals... to put the federal government [in the middle], (not in terms of having a system of background checks for federally licensed dealers) ... but for you and me, for two guys in a duck blind selling their shotguns, one to the other.  And the federal government doesn't have any business there.
     And if you ask the American people that, they don't want the federal government getting in between private consensual sales between individual citizens.
     And I would note ... when you asked about the role of public opinion polls ... when it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says.  It doesn't matter what might be popular at the moment.  We've seen regimes across the face of the earth come and take away peoples guns; strip away their right to defend themselves.  And sometimes it's been very popular, and yet it is an inevitable prelude to tyranny.
     Our country was founded on a radical proposition, which is that our rights don't come from government.  They come from God.  And the purpose of the Constitution .... Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution serves as chains to bind the mischief of government.  And the entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting; it's not for target shooting -- those are both wonderful; it's great to go with your family and your kids to go hunting or skeet shooting -- but that is not what the Second Amendment is for.  The Second Amendment is there so you and I can protect our homes, our families, our children, and our lives.  It's also there as a fundamental check on government tyranny.  And that ultimately is not subject to public opinion polls.  It's subject to the expressed protection of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
     My response:  Those who would seek to bow to public opinion as the ultimate decision-maker would lead us down that slippery path to tyranny.  Are they that naive?  Can they not look at history and see how easily the masses have been manipulated and have played right into their tyrant's hand?  All one has to do is read a concise history of how the Nazi Party used gun control to "cleanse" and "control"; first, their own nation, and then the nations they proceeded to invade and conquer.
     Did you know that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration?  Look how easily public opinion has been swayed in just 74 years!  So do you really want some public opinion polls to determine your freedoms and the right to protect yourself, home, and country?  Due to the proclivity of sheep to be easily led to the slaughter, how could you trust those opinions?  Based on the near ignorance of important issues by the populace in this country, public opinion polls is a ridiculous way to govern!  The Constitution is the best -- and only -- method by which we can maintain our freedoms.  The freedoms that were given to us by God should not be subject to the whims and impulses of the guileless masses.

By the way, that educated response to the Second Amendment ambush was Senator Ted Cruz.  You can hear his response first-hand by clicking on this link.

1 Peter 2:16   "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."

The Religious Freedom Bill

     Indiana has joined a handful of states to pass legislation protecting business owners from "burdensome" anti-discrimination laws that would force them to go against their faith.  Called "The Religious Freedom Bill", this law's primary intent is "to keep the government from forcing people of faith to provide services for same-sex weddings or other activities that are contrary to their religious beliefs."
     As I'm sure you are well aware, there is an agenda in this country to confront business owners whose faith prohibits them from supporting same-sex marriages.  Wedding photographers, Bakeries, and Florists are often singled out as examples of discrimination against the LGBT community.  Too often, these business owners are forced to choose between their faith and their ability to make a living.  They have been sued, have lost in court, and rather than forsake their faith, have been compelled to file bankruptcy or otherwise close down their businesses.

     Unfortunately, our changing court system has not upheld the Constitution and our First Amendment which "prohibits the impeding of the free exercise of religion."  Hastily passed anti-discrimination laws by progressive lawmakers have, so far, taken precedence over our First Amendment rights.
     But now, states like Indiana are moving forward in an attempt to give courts guidance on how to decide cases involving competing constitutional rights pertaining to religious freedom and discrimination.
     Not surprisingly, supporters of the bill argue the measure is needed to protect Indiana business owners from too much government control. Opponents decry the measure as legalized discrimination.  It is obvious to me that there needs to be a stronger judicial standard in settling these cases.  The fact that specific business owners could be forced to lose their businesses, even though LGBT customers have viable alternatives from other businesses who would service them, seems like reverse discrimination and an excuse for a "witch hunt".
     The Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, released this statement after his state's House of Representatives passed the bill:  “The legislation, SB 101, is about respecting and reassuring Hoosiers that their religious freedoms are intact.  I strongly support the legislation and applaud the members of the General Assembly for their work on this important issue.  I look forward to signing the bill when it reaches my desk.”
     The proposal is modeled on a 22-year-old federal law known as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. That law played a key role in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that allowed Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations with religious objections to opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that they cover certain contraceptives for women.
     The faith of Hobby Lobby's owners played prominently in their decision to oppose that law, just as the faith of business owners in Indiana is important in how they conduct their lives and businesses.  And, as you would expect, both sides of the argument used the Bible to support their arguments.
     Proponents of the Religious Freedom bill pointed to an anesthesiologist who didn't want to anesthetize a woman in preparation for an abortion.  They believe the Bible's command to "do all things as unto the Lord" means religious believers need to be protected not just in church, but in their workplaces as well.
     Opponents to SB 101 argue that Jesus served all people, pointing out that he "had dinner with hookers", and blessed them.  Anything less than total acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle is discrimination.
     What I have found disconcerting about this whole issue is the fact that tolerance seems to be awfully one-sided.  From what I have read, every business owner who cited their faith as reason they could not offer their services to same-sex weddings offered to help the customer find another business owner who would provide the service.  But, you see, I'm not sure that the actual service was really the priority to those filing suit.  I think they wanted to force those of faith to pay some kind of penalty for their religious beliefs; even going so far as costing them their living.  And that, as Indiana and 12 other states have determined, will soon be illegal.  It's just too bad that we have to pass a law to be able to practice our faith in good conscience.

2 Corinthians 10:5    "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..."

"I Will Not Back Down"

     Yesterday, I talked about the very real danger of this nation losing its identity as independent free-thinkers and upholders of our inherited freedoms.  But I'd like to tell you two stories of individuals that have decided to stand up for our fading values.
     You might recall an essay I wrote last summer that involved William Baer, who appeared at a meeting of his local School Board to protest a book that had been assigned to his 14-year-old daughter.  Mr. Baer stood up to say that he felt the sexual content of the book was inappropriate, and he wanted to voice his objection.  However, the members of the school board didn't want to hear it, and asked him to sit down.  Apparently he wasn't being "respectful" of other audience members.
     Understandably, this offended the conscientious parent and he said he didn't appreciate the school being disrespectful to his daughter by requiring a book (that he clearly felt was immoral) to be read.  He was then told that he had violated the 2-minute rule for speaking and was escorted out of the room and arrested.
     As World Net Daily reports, his "unlawful arrest" and the criminal charges that were filed against him were eventually thrown out of court, but Mr. Baer has decided that "it’s time for elected leaders to stop trampling the First Amendment rights of citizens," and he is fighting back with a lawsuit against the officer who made the arrest, then-acting Police Chief James Leach.  For the past seven months, Leach, along with the subsequently appointed Police Chief, continued to prosecute the case against Mr. Baer, until County Judge James Carroll tossed the case out of court.
     Baer said his lawsuit is as much about stopping the national trend as it is seeking justice for himself.  “These men abused their authority and their positions under color of law. The ‘law enforcers’ became lawbreakers and must be held to account.”
     Mr. Baer is among a growing number of law-abiding citizens who have been arrested for speaking up for their principles.  Parents who disapprove of the Common Core educational system are being harassed at public meetings, and in one such case, in Baltimore County, Maryland, a parent was approached by a burly security guard, pushed, shoved, threatened and eventually handcuffed and forced to leave the meeting.
     It is just such treatment that is behind Mr. Baer's lawsuit.  Baer maintains that the three charges of disorderly conduct brought against him were unwarranted and he wants justice for himself and his family.  “After seven-and-a-half months of being pursued by the State of New Hampshire, through the Gilford Police Department and School Board, I am obviously pleased that all charges have been dismissed. Belknap County Judge James Carroll showed me there still is some justice in our system,” he said.  But he makes it clear that this is not about vindictiveness ... it's about standing up for our First Amendment rights.
     I also want to tell you about the story of a 70-year-old Christian florist in Washington state who is being sued for refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.  Although she offered to help the couple find a florist who would service them, that wasn't good enough.  The inevitable lawsuit was filed and Barronelle Stutzman was found guilty of violating Washington's nondiscriminatory statute.
     But here's what is so disturbing to me about this story ... According to The Christian Post, the man filing the lawsuit has been a customer of Stutzman's for the past nine years!  She had built great rapport with the customer and an obviously satisfactory business relationship.  But when she honestly confided that due to her faith, she felt she had to decline his request for his wedding, any friendship went out the window.  The "guilty" sentence and summary judgment could involve Stutzman losing not only her business, but her home and savings.
     The state's Attorney General offered Barronelle a way out of the overwhelming judgment ... simply pay $2001 in fines and legal costs -- and agree to service gay weddings in the future -- and it would all go away.  But Ms. Stutzman is no "luke-warm" Christian.  In response to the Attorney General's letter, she replied with a letter of her own:  "Washington's constitution guarantees us 'freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.' I cannot sell that precious freedom," Stutzman's letter asserts. "You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do."
     She also managed to school the AG on exactly what the word "freedom" means.  "Your offer reveals that you don't really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It's about freedom, not money," Stutzman wrote. "I certainly don't relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important."
     This florist certainly has the courage to stand behind her faith and convictions.  "I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend," Stutzman's letter stated. "I've also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home."
     Not only is she clear about how she wants to be understood, but she speaks for me and, I believe, many more Christians across this nation when she says, "Our state would be a better place if we respected each other's differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences," Stutzman wrote. "Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible's teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs."  Well said!
     In the stories of these two people, we have excellent examples of standing for our principles and values, as well as our religious beliefs.  It would be simple for each to accept the olive branch that has been offered after the miscarriage of justice against them.  For each, it is not about profiting from injustice, but about fighting back against a system that is one-sided and tyrannical.  It is about standing up for their God-given and Constitutional rights.  It's really that simple ... and that necessary.

Proverbs 25:26   "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked."
   


   

   

Are You Worthy To Be A Citizen?

   

     I heard an ingenious idea the other day on talk radio.  The host was informing his audience that a Tennessee State Legislator has proposed a bill that would require all high school seniors in his state to pass a test proving that they know and understand U.S. history and the Constitution before they can graduate.  The test would be similar to the one that legal immigrants must pass to be granted citizenship, and the students would have to answer 60 out of 100 questions correctly to receive their diploma.
     Why not?  Don't you think it would bode well for our country if the next generation understood, not only the basics of how our government is to function, but the history of what we've done right and what we've done wrong to get to our present state?
     I have been shocked at the lack of knowledge of the American citizenry when it comes to our government and our history.  In fact, over the holidays, I engaged with several college students who all say that History is their least favorite subject.  Since it was my favorite, and I loved studying about the Middle Ages, the various world explorers, and our own American Revolution, I struggled to figure out what makes them uninterested in our historical events or the past.
     I think I have discovered the culprit --- it's our modern technology.  The advent of the cell phone and social media has captivated their interest in the "here and now".  They are only curious about discovering what is happening at this moment; or over the last 24-hour period at the longest.  Just look at the various apps they subscribe to .... InstaChat, Snap Chat .... they aren't called instant messaging applications for nothing.
     Technology has convinced people that the only important thing in their lives is what is happening now.  Anything that happened in the past has no relevance to them; it doesn't affect their self-absorbed lives, and they aren't interested in anything that breaks their preoccupation with their own emotions, interests, or situations.
     So, if I have correctly identified the reason why today's student isn't interested in History or Civics courses, would making them take this test before advancing towards their life goals make any difference?  I don't know, but I think it's worth a shot.  Because if a nation's native citizens cannot identify why they are governed the way they are; or they are unable to relate to the historical events that have shaped their present state, then they don't really know who they are.  And once a nation loses its identity, they are subject to becoming divided and disengaged; open to deception, exploitation, and subjugation.
      That's why newly naturalized citizens often make the best Americans.  They know how our government is to perform, and they understand (through our history) what has made this nation so appealing to immigrants for the past two and half centuries.  They are here because they know what this country stands for, what our history is, and they want to be a part of conserving the principles, ideals and dreams of what it means to be an American.
     So maybe it's time that the rest of us who claim the title of American (by the grace of God), be required to prove that we are worthy of the benefits of living in this great nation.  And maybe ... just maybe ... it would make us see where, and how far, off course we've come.
     Ready to answer some sample questions?  I've picked some random questions from among the 100 that are included in the Naturalization Test for U.S. Citizenship.  See how much you, your children and your grandchildren truly know about the United States of America.

1.    What is the Supreme Law of the Land?  
2.    The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?
3.    What is an amendment?
4.    What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?
5.    What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?
6.    What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?
7.    What is the “rule of law”?
       •  Everyone must follow the law.
       •  Leaders must obey the law.
       •  Government must obey the law.
       •  No one is above the law.
8.    What is the economic system in the United States?
       •  Capitalist economy
       •  Market economy
9.    How many U.S. Senators are there?
10.  We elect a U.S. Representative for how many years?
11.  Name your U.S. Representative.
12.  If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?
13.  What is the highest court in the United States?
14.  How many justices are on the Supreme Court?
15.  Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?
16.  There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.
17.  What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?
18.  What do we show loyalty to when we say the Pledge of Allegiance?
19.  What is one reason colonists came to America? 
20.  Why did the colonists fight the British?
21.  There were 13 original states. Name three. 
22.  When was the Constitution written? 
23.  The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers. 
24.  Who is "the Father of our Country"?
25.  What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?
26.  Name one problem that led to the Civil War. 
27.  What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?
28.  Who was President during World War I?
29.  Who did the United States fight in World War II?
30.  During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States? 
31.  What major event happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States?
32.  Name one American Indian tribe.
33.  Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.
34.  Name one U.S. territory.
35.  Name one state that borders Canada.
36.  Name one state that borders Mexico.
37.  Why does the flag have 13 stripes?
38.  What is the capital of the United States?
39.  When do we celebrate Independence Day?
40.   Name one branch of the government. 

     So, how did you do?  Try taking this sample test and then comparing your answers with those of your children or grandchildren.  Is there a discrepancy in knowledge?  If so, are they interested in knowing more about their country?  And, if not, does this concern you?
     I just can't help feeling that we have been so blessed to have been born in this nation; a country that hundreds of thousands have yearned to get to because they sensed that it was special and separate from any other land that has existed in history.  God had a purpose in establishing this nation, it is incumbent upon us to understand its exceptionalism, and to teach it to all our generations.  However, I'm afraid that we are losing that sense of extraordinary purpose and blessed opportunity that was our identifiable attribute.
     Like the old saying goes ... "Those who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it."  Even the Bible warns us that "As it was in the days of Noah...", and to "Remember Lot's wife."  We cannot afford to become indifferent or unmotivated in these times that carry great risk.  We must be knowledgable about who we are; because when we no longer aware of our past, or why we exist in God's eternal plan, then we are in danger of making destructive and devastating mistakes that could see us fade from history altogether.  And with no knowledge of our unique history, or how we are to govern ourselves, we'll never see it coming. 

If you would like to see the full list of questions on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services test for citizenship, click here.  

Job 8:8-10   "For inquire, please, of bygone ages, and consider what the fathers have searched out. For we are but of yesterday and know nothing, for our days on earth are a shadow. Will they not teach you and tell you and utter words out of their understanding?"

What's Happened To The Rule Of Law?

     It is just my opinion, but I am willing to speculate that one of the primary reasons this country has been a beacon for immigrants in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries of our existence is that we have represented a fairly consistent pattern of restricting the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
     There ... I just gave you the definition of "the Rule of Law".  History shows that this land was a magnet for people who dreamed of escaping tyranny -- from the Pilgrims, who were escaping political and religious persecution, (as well as imprisonment), for charges of treason against the Crown; to South Africans who longed to break free of the apartheid injustice of a ruling party who, with extreme intent, demolished anything that got in the way of its legal and political agenda.
     It is also my opinion that, from the beginning of time, societies and civilizations have succeeded because people recognized the need for a moral and legal set of rules by which to live.  They have succeeded economically, socially and politically when they have respected the authority and influence of law; law which is described as "a system of rules which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior." (Wikipedia).
     But that success and harmony only continues to exist when laws, (or constraints on behavior), are equally observed by the populace and the governing officials.  Why do you think that we have had tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of illegal immigrants flock to our southern border in the last year or so?  They are escaping the tyrannical rule of corrupt politicians and dictators, the uncontrolled dominance of drug cartels, and the unrelenting violence of civil wars within their own countries --- all the result of a lack of the Rule of Law.

     In other words, when the government of a nation decides that the instituted laws of that nation no longer apply to them, then there is not only the threat of injustice to the citizens, but a complete breakdown of their individual security, economic stability, and personal freedoms.
     When any government body, or individual, decides that they can arbitrarily ignore the established laws, and exercise power at their will, then the Rule of Law no longer exists.  In effect, laws are a check (or curb) on that autocratic power.  When they are breached, the freedom we have known under the law, becomes insubstantial.  There is a profound deterioration of individual rights, in the wake of a growing power of the State.  That makes liberty-lovers a little nervous.
     Here in the United States, it has been accepted that all government officers, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. It has also been understood that these oaths affirm that the Rule of Law is superior to the rule of any human leader.  But when law-makers determine that they are no longer subjects of the law, then chaos ensues.
     We have seen that with the Fast and Furious debacle, the imminent "amnesty" issue, and I fear that we will see it set forth from the Ferguson, Missouri incident, as well.  To be sure, we have a problem with the Rule of Law being appropriately honored and administered in this nation.
     But let me drop a little bug in your ear ... our Rule of Law is not only being diminished from within our own country's framework, and by our own governing leaders, but could all this "lawlessness" soon come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations?  Let me explain ...
     Did you know that International Leaders from around the world convened about a year ago for what was called "the Bangkok Dialogue on the Rule of Law"?  Apparently, the UN has Millennium Development Goals, and the Rule of Law is a hot topic towards achieving those goals.  In fact, at the heart of the United Nations’ agenda is its role as the guardian of international legal frameworks.  That means that they, ideally, want to determine what our Rule of Law should be.
     Keeping that in mind, here is the UN's definition of the Rule of Law:  the rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which “all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly broadcasted, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights, norms and standards”.
     Since when has America ever considered herself as following "standards or norms", as dictated by other entities?  Isn't that exactly why immigrants are streaming to our shores?  Never mind that our nation's Rule of Law was founded on Christian-Judeo principles of a "Higher Law" than man's laws; that our individual rights and liberties were established by our Creator, and are not subject to the whims of a  human ruler.  When that principle is forgotten, we are left with this reality:  "Behind every legal order there is always a god, be it God Himself or those who have control over the state machinery." (RJ Rushdoony, American philosopher, historian and theologian).
     Ultimately, we are in danger of losing our unique Rule of Law in this country.  We have abandoned the Source of our Liberties, and forgotten that God's Higher Laws are above the laws of any man.  It's simple, really ... we, as the people of our nation, along with those we have chosen to protect our Rule of Law, must decide what kind of authority we want as the source of power over us.  Do we want the authority of God-instituted laws; the control of an "international body", such as the UN, to mold us to an acceptable standard; or do we want the authority of a mere human ruler, who seeks his own power, instead of glorifying God's laws?
     I think we've taken our unique Rule of Law for granted too long, and assumed it would always exist.  But when men put their laws above God's; and seek their will, instead of His, then the legality of laws don't really matter -- only the end results that uphold a man's power and authority.  That's when we are in danger of replacing laws with illegality, and we cease to exist as the land of the free.  How much longer before our Rule of Law vanishes altogether?

Jeremiah 10:23    "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."

The Supreme Court Is In Session: How Will God Judge Us?

     You may not realize it, but today is the day that the Supreme Court begins its next term.  As Americans, we hardly take note when the highest court of the land is in session.  I would daresay that most of us know very little of the history of the Court or its purpose within our governmental system.
     Among other cases, this session of the Court may decide, once and for all, the legality of same-sex marriage, and therefore will deliver important consequences for our nation.  And, as always, I am completely taken by surprise when seemingly random thoughts occur to me, such as, I wonder if there is a Biblical parallel between how God used the Israelite Judges in the Bible, and our own Supreme Court?  Rather than dismiss these thoughts, especially if they are recurring, I usually conclude that they are not by chance, at all, and decide to follow where I am being led; so here we go ....
     Let's start with the role of the Supreme Court.  It was interesting to research different opinions of the Court.  One website,  Scholastic.com, (which advocates Common Core), describes the Supreme Court in these terms:  "The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the our system of government, it's the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials have [exceeded their authority and] stepped out-of-bounds."
     Another site, Answers.com, says, "The Supreme Court, the only court created by the Constitution, has the final say on all legal matters that come to it ... The primary role of the US Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution."  Both definitions make it clear that, in matters of law, the Supreme Court bases its judgments on "the highest law of all -- the Constitution."
     That's where I think we, as a nation, have gotten off-track.  Shouldn't God's laws be the highest in the land?  Did you know that we have a history, since the founding of this nation, of conflict over a "Godless Constitution"?  Beginning in 1787, with the drafting of the Constitution, there was much debate over the role of God within the Constitution's framework, and the lack of mention of Him in the final draft.  Then in 1863, a group called the National Reform Association attempted to propose an amendment "to rectify the religious defect" in the document.  According to an article by the European Journal of American Studies, "Ministers attacked the Constitution from the pulpit, usually because it lacked reference to God."   Even in our lifetimes, we have seen this controversy around God's role in the administration of our nation, with the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1980s.

     Inevitably, this argument comes back to the "separation of church and state" controversy.  We could debate endlessly on whether that was the original intent of our Founding Fathers or not; and other than their own writings on the subject, I am disinclined to accept any modern interpretation of their intentions.  That being said, we can accept this simple fact, as it has been presented by TheocracyWatch.org:  The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is [virtually] secular.  The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.  The Constitution is a legal document; the Declaration is not.
     So, if we accept that our nation was founded with the idea that a legal document was to be "the highest law of all", does this explain how we've steadily wandered from acknowledgment of God as our Supreme Law-giver and Judge ... and that we ignore the highest law of all as established by God,  and He will judge whether we have obeyed His decrees?
     As a Christian, it is my belief that all nations, leaders and judges have been given their authority by God; and these people[s] can be used by Him to bless us or to discipline us.  Just as in the Old Testament, after the capable leadership of Joshua, the nation of Israel no longer trusted in or obeyed God, and proceeded to "do what was right in its own eyes".   The Book of Judges chronicles the apostasy of Israel and the merciful deliverance of the nation through the Judges He provided.
     Don't get confused by that word "deliverance".  It does not mean that God spared Israel from the consequences of its actions, as their repeated oppression by foreign nations testifies.  But God did show His compassion and His faithfulness through His covenant with Israel, by providing them Judges, who were political leaders that rescued them from their own unfaithfulness, and eventually delivered them from foreign threats or repression.
     So, how does this relate to us, today?  In Judges, Chapter 2, the Bible says the people were "greatly distressed," and even though God "raised up judges who delivered them out of the hand of those who plundered them, they would not listen, but played the harlot with other gods, and bowed down to them."  This clearly shows that God remained faithful and took pity upon a wayward people who "grieved Him continually."  I contend that we qualify for grieving God, and are mirroring the apostasy of ancient Israel, resulting in a downward spiral of disobedience and idolatry that has taken us further away from God, our true Judge.  The question remains: Will He take pity on us in this age?

Deborah, the Prophetess and Judge of Israel

    The Biblical history of the Israelite judges reveals that some accomplished more for God and the people than others.  For all intents and purposes, every generation got the leadership and judges it deserved.  What does that say about us, and what does it portend?  How will the Judges of our Supreme Court rule this session?  Will they be God's instrument of blessing, or will they represent His discipline upon our nation?
     Since our Supreme Court has increasingly compromised Constitutional rulings for political ones; and we know that Biblical principles will not play a role in their decisions; we now have a deeply divided Court.  This will render the same-sex marriage issue not only the most important matter before the Court in determining our way of life, but it will be the defining legacy of this Court.  Since God is not present in the Constitution, and seems to be an absent influence in most of our political leaders, I think it is safe to say we can expect the Justices to do what they think is right "in their own eyes."   Or they could decide to delay a decision on this case, causing further dissension, and a continued disregard for God's opinion on the matter.
     No matter what the Court decides in this controversial case -- or the others before it -- we, as a nation, must come to realize that disobedience invites discipline, and always brings judgment.  Whether we are judged to be a righteous nation, or an apostate one, will be revealed by those God has set to rule over us.  At the moment, our breakdown in responsiveness to our LORD, and our lack of conviction to His principles, has led us to a breakdown in our societal and moral fabric.
     But we must never forget that God is always there for those who cry out to Him.  The Book of Judges reveals the cycles of decline and revival among the ancient nation of Israel.  We need to pray and cry out to God to prepare a Deliverer for this nation.  If that turns out to be the return of Christ, then that's wonderful!  If our Lord is delayed, then let's pray for a righteous leader[s] that will bring renewal to this oppressed land.  It's time to break this cycle and change the direction of this country.  With God's help, we can!

Judges 2:18    "And when the Lord raised them up judges, in their days He was moved to mercy, and heard the groanings of the afflicted, and delivered them from the slaughter of the oppressors."
   
   
     
   
   
   

The Southern Border: What You're Not Hearing

     This post comes to you courtesy of an organization called Oath Keepers.  I cannot imagine that you are unaware of them, but if so, here is their mission statement:  Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders  who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Furthermore, Oath Keepers reaches out to both current and veteran military personnel, to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it.  Their motto is "Not on our watch!"
     They go even further on their website in describing their loyalty to Article VI of the Constitution, rather than to politicians, but I will let you do your own research on what that may entail.  Today, I want to make you aware of what they are doing to help defend our Southern border.
     Under an article, titled Texas Ranchers Fear For Their Lives And Families -- Ask Veterans For Help, we get an up-close and personal view of just how bad it is on the Texas border.  Never mind what you hear the talking heads or the White House Press Corps say ... listen to the first-hand account of someone who is living the reality:  Rusty is a lifelong rancher along the border of Texas and Mexico.  He describes how the Mexican drug cartels are using death threats, assault, and attempted murder to drive ranchers and their families off of their land. He tells how some of his neighbors are fleeing their ranches, while others are standing firm with the help of volunteer patriot security patrols.

     In an audio interview on the Oath Keepers website, Rusty describes the Border Patrol intercepting Muslim men from Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and says “when they [Border Patrol] take them in, they’ll disappear – they’ll take them somewhere – and even the records will disappear. And I asked one of them ‘what’s the deal on the records’ and he said ‘that’s an order from way up the line, up in DC – they don’t want anybody to know how many are coming through’…they [the local Border Patrol agents] keep records but the records disappear, out of the mainframe – out of the computer – and the paper records too.”
     Rob, an out-of-state Oath Keepers member who has been serving as a volunteer guard on Rusty’s ranch corroborates Rusty's narrative, and adds his own opinion:  "The only thing we [the American public] hear about is women and kids… and when they make huge drug busts, that’s what we hear about.  We don’t hear about the gang-bangers coming across, we don’t hear about the terrorists coming across.  We don’t hear about the violence going down on the border.  I had a rancher call me last week, and begging for help on 15,000 acres.  He had been moved off his ranch because he doesn’t feel safe with his family there.  He’s been shot at and threatened.  We don’t hear that [on the news]."
     Perhaps the most frightening information coming from this interview was Rusty's account of the child abductions, sex-slave, and prostitution threats:  "They steal kids. Literally, they steal kids. Depending on how good looking they are, they’re gonna start at $35,00.00 to $45,000.00 dollars per kid. Blond haired, blue eyed little boy, little girl, is anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000.00 dollars, depending on how old they are. The older they are, particularly for girls, the more the price goes up. There’s been some girls that have been missing here, for five years from Brownsville, they were stolen when they were thirteen. One of them was found in a whorehouse in Mexico City. Her parents bought her out [from the cartels]– they bought her out for a million-five."
     Apparently Governor Rick Perry's call-up of the Texas National Guard is having little effect.  According to Rusty, "The Texas State Guard are in the flimsy, cheap, probably Chinese-made watch-towers.  They’re not bullet proof, they’ve got glass on four sides and they posted them from McAllen, which is the North end of the Valley, to Laredo, which is about 200 miles.  They’re not down here south."  And Rob is saying that the BLM land, owned by the Government, is a very large, wide open “free pass” zone for the cartels, terrorists, and gangs coming across the border.  "Border Patrol is not even allowed to chase people on it... There’s a joke in the community here that the only people allowed on Fish and Wildlife land are the illegal immigrants."
     And now these brave Texas ranchers (and Americans!) are left to their last resort ... asking Texas veterans to live up to their Constitutional oaths and come help defend the border.  That is a poor reflection upon this nation's sovereignty ... oh, but I forgot ... we are no longer sovereign or independent. There is an agenda here and it's not a pretty one.  Rusty's story makes it very clear that Americans and their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness are sacrifices worthy to achieve an ill-gotten goal.  May God protect these families and those who come to their aid!

Nehemiah 4:14     And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”

A Win For Hobby Lobby & The Constitution!

     I sat, holding my breath yesterday morning, awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court on the most important case before the bench, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.  As you should know, the case was to determine whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) can exempt a company from federal government regulations requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees.
     In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court gave a narrow ruling that "closely-held corporations" can't be forced to provide contraception.  Basically, the Court held that private, family-owned businesses can claim religious exemption to being forced to provide certain contraceptive measures that are designed to end the pregnancy of a fertilized egg; in effect, resulting in abortion.  Specifically, Hobby Lobby objected to four of the 20 contraceptive methods in the mandate; pills and devices that can work after conception, including morning after pills and IUDs.  Essentially, the Supreme Court has voted that our religious convictions matter, and corporations can have a religious viewpoint under federal law.
     I have to admit that tears spontaneously filled my eyes, as I looked heavenward and thanked God.  Perhaps He had heard and answered the collective prayers of Christians who asked that we not be forced to compromise our faith.  Of course, the skeptics will point out that it was a narrow victory; far from unanimous, and is not a clear mandate from either the Court or the populace.  They will argue that women, who wish to receive these methods of birth control, will be denied, and the government was only trying to require businesses to provide a health care option the women need.

     But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote his own opinion, pointed out this mandate did not come from an elected body; not from Congress, or one of the three elected Branches of government; but from an unelected bureaucracy, namely from the Department of Health and Human Services.  He found it troubling that an unelected bureaucrat (at the time, Kathleen Sebelius) could set down such sweeping laws that effected the electorate.  That is clearly unConstitutional!
     I will admit that I'm a little confused about the dissenting opinion coming from Justice Ginsberg, who saw this as a gender equality issue in the workplace.  Already, opponents of the Court decision are misleading the public by saying that employers are exempt from providing all contraception methods.  In truth, only four of the twenty were excluded.  Then of course, we are hearing a montage of talking points on the injustice towards women, and how this is part of the continued "war on women."  But these arguments just don't hold water.
     The Court ruled that women who want these contraceptions are not banned from getting them; they have other ways to receive them, like buying them for themselves (as they had been doing for the 30 years before the Affordable Care Act).  Or if HHS was so concerned about the availability of free contraceptive methods, why didn't they pay for them?  (Of course, if the government paid for them, it would mean the American taxpayer would be footing the bill, right?)  In the end, the Court decided that this mandate intruded upon the "individual conscious" of Hobby Lobby's owners, and DID prohibit them from the "free exercise" of their religious beliefs, which is a violation of the First Amendment.  It gives me a small glimmer of hope that our national foundation of religious liberty is still holding strong.  Keep praying, America!

Joshua 24:15        "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."