Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


Whaddya Mean,
"America is not a Christian Nation"?

[COMMENT:   A bipartisan group of 25 members of the House of Representatives earlier this month submitted H.Res. 397, which calls on Congress to affirm "the rich spiritual and religious history of our nation's founding and subsequent history" and to designate the first week of May as America's Spiritual Heritage Week for 'the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.' 
        See YouTube at http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98369 
 

Here is an email on the subject I sent out to some friends and family.   For whole article at WorldNetDaily, see below.   

See also below, my response to Obama's comments about having values available to everybody.   E. Fox]
 

       Rep. Randy Forbes has challenged the notion that we are (or are no longer) a Judeo-Christian nation.  See the following youtube of Forbes' presentation of the bill. 
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98369 
        I hope the text will be published abroad.  The history is unassailable.  The Supreme Court openly and unabashedly supported that stance that America was founded as a Christian nation right up into the 1940's.  Then it began to turn badly.  The ax fell in 1962 with the Engel vs. Vitale decision, throwing prayer out of schools (the real problem is not prayer in schools, but government in schools). 
        That was the first Supreme Court decision in history with no precedent cited, for the simple reason that there was no precedent to cite.  (A precedent is a previous court decision on the same topic -- which is quoted by a later decision to give support to itself.)  The Court made up the nonsense whole cloth that they could dismiss God from His sovereignty over the whole of the cosmos  -- well at least over the US of A.  And in doing so they scuttled the very foundation of our government -- namely that our freedoms and rights are inalienable because they come from God, not from civil government. 
        Civil government cannot give us our rights (or obligations), it can only take them away (in practice, not in reality).  The only thing civil government can legitimately do about those rights (and obligations) is to administer them according to the law and grace of God.  It cannot legitimately change them, as it is routinely trying to do today.  And that means that all of its attempts to do so are illegal and are to be ignored.  It is acting beyond it capacities. 

            The logical implication of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution is that God is sovereign over all governments, no exceptions (that is the meaning of sovereignty, is it not?).  And it is the task of Judeo-Christians to let the world know that.  Our public and political freedoms come from God just as do our personal salvation freedoms.  That is part of the Good News. 
        Our founding fathers and the legal scholars of the 1700's in both England and Colonial America understood that the law of God stands over all civil law, and is indeed the only possible foundation of legitimacy for civil government.  See William Blackstone at http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/Cnst/BlackstonLaw.htm  Blackstone is the primary British legal author which was read by all of the colonial lawyers and patriots -- as well as in England itself. 
        Yeah, I know, I am being impolite and unkind for suggesting that one view is right and that not everyone can have their way.  But that is the nature of truth.  Sometimes, it is either/or, not both/and.  2+2=4, and nothing else. 
        If I am wrong, would it not be rather easy to show that I am wrong?  i.e. by pointing to reliable American history which tells the opposite story from mine?   Should it not be rather easy to quote the founding fathers and others later (eg, other Supreme Court decisions?)-- to prove our respective points?   If I am wrong, I really do want to know.  I do not want to be promoting falsehoods.    I would hope that all of us can say that. 

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

 


 

FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
Whaddya mean, 'America is not a Christian nation'?
Congressmen challenge Obama assertion by drafting 'spiritual heritage' legislation
Posted: May 16, 2009   8:45 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn     2009 WorldNetDaily

While Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is "no longer a Christian nation," several members of Congress have taken a stand to boldly disagree.

A bipartisan group of 25 members of the House of Representatives earlier this month submitted H.Res. 397, which calls on Congress to affirm "the rich spiritual and religious history of our nation's founding and subsequent history" and to designate the first week of May as America's Spiritual Heritage Week for "the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., specifically challenged the president's claims that America is not a Christian nation in a news conference announcing the bill immediately following last week's National Day of Prayer observance.

"The overwhelming evidence suggests that this nation was born and birthed with Judeo-Christian principles," Forbes told reporters, "and I would challenge anybody to tell me that point in time when we ceased to be so, because it doesn't exist."

Read for yourself the timeless evidence of Christianity's impact on America in the freshly republished "Christianity and the American Commonwealth."

The bill itself cites over 70 historical references and quotes from past presidents, Founding Fathers and Supreme Court decisions as proof that Judeo-Christian principles have been the foundation of our nation.

H.Res. 397, which has now accumulated 41 cosponsors, not only calls on Congress to affirm the nation's spiritual heritage, but also resolves that the U.S. House of Representatives "rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure or purposely omit such history from our nation's public buildings and educational resources."

Video of Forbes presenting his argument for the bill's passage on the floor of the House can be seen here:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98369 

The full text of H.Res. 397 begins by asserting that "religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all three branches of the federal government from their very beginning."

The bill's long list of "whereas" affirmations begins with the statement, "Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring 'This is a religious people. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.'"

 

Among the many historical proofs included in the bill were the following:

Following the lengthy "whereas" section, the bill then calls on the House to resolve to affirm the spiritual history of the nation, reject efforts to cleanse that religious history and establish America's Spiritual History Week to appreciate and educate the citizenry on the country's foundations in faith.

Forbes was joined in announcing the bill's introduction by several members of Congress who spoke in favor of the bill, religious leaders like Dr. James and Shirley Dobson, professional football player Shaun Alexander, and leaders of several national education, policy and advocacy groups.

Asked last year to clarify his remarks on America's spiritual heritage, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network: "I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.

"We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the statehouse to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community," wrote Obama.

Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who serves as co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus with Rep. Forbes, spoke at the press conference announcing H.Res. 397 and asserted to the contrary that it's "high time" the nation recognize and affirm the "integral part of our nation's history" that Christianity has played.

McIntyre said Americans don't know, for example, that even Ben Franklin, who "wasn't known as the most spiritual of the Founding Fathers," nonetheless looked to God as the only hope for our country:

"Ben Franklin," McIntyre said, "stood up and called the assembly of delegates to prayer, because, he said, 'Scripture teaches us that if a sparrow can't fall to the ground without his notice, is it likely that an empire will rise without his aid?' And if we don't first go to prayer, he said, 'We'll be no more successful then the builders of Babel.'"

"Values Accessible to Every Citizen....?"
a Response to Mr. Obama
F. Earle Fox

What would "values accessible to every citizen", as recommended by Obama, mean?  Is Obama saying something coherent?  Does he understand the logic of that for which he is asking? 

On one hand, the remarks seem obviously and patently true.  In colonial days, we had almost all British and mostly Christian citizens.  Today, as he says, we have Jews, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, and others.  So, he wants to construct a moral consensus which will apply to all of those groups and do the job which a morality is to do. 

We also have skinheads, neo-nazis, Christian and other fundamentalists, we have persons with violent strategies, etec.  There is no possiblity of combining.  We have terrorists coming across our borders.  we have

Govt cannot doit, only a freemarket of ideas, of economics, under a limited govt under God. 

Only the Biblical union of love and law can do it.  See article on govt and love in MM. 

False pluralism and true. 

And, who has the authority to decide?  Apart from God.  Which God? 

See article on how to have unity four levels. 

 

Go to: => TOP Page;   US History;   Politics;   Constitution;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  05/29/2009   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012