Guns and Responsibility

As much as I enjoy shooting, I hope that I never have to use any of my weapons to defend myself from anybody, but I will if necessary.  As my guns sit in closets and drawers collecting dust (figure of speech) I can’t for the life of me, figure out how after owning gun(s) from age 8, how I have not as yet killed myself or someone else for that matter. Amazing, considering that according to some, merely owning a gun leads to death of somebody. In all of history no one has ever died in a horrible manner other than sickness, disease or old age until the invention of the gun. The closer I get to it the more I realize how nasty old age can be. Being a fan of the History channel, I was able to vicariously experience the “Black Plague” that all of Europe experienced in the dark ages and a third of Europe’s population died.

 The first chronicled murder in the Bible was Cain killing his brother Abel.  I believe he used a 38 special and did a “triple tap”, two to the chest and one to ……..no, that’s not it. Probably a stick, rock or his bare hands. Then there was the genocide of the Philistines  perpetrated by that religious fanatic Samson that killed thousands with a Glock 19 and a Benelli  12gauge. No, wait a minute, that was the jawbone of an ass. Right now I’m pretty certain I’m being called an ass by some. I can only say, in my defense, that sarcasm is a truly unappreciated art form.

As previously stated, I have owned a firearm in one form or another since the age of 8. That means about 50years of gun ownership with no accidents, injuries or deaths, except for the unlucky “flea ridden” disease carrying varmints that were unfortunate enough to cross my path. What am I doing wrong? I must be one of those statistical anomalies I’ve heard about because, according to some, guns and gun ownership is nothing but bad news waiting to happen.

The problem, as I see it is that people are giving an inanimate object power over themselves. CLICHÉ ALERT “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. “ A gun is lifeless, a gun sitting on a table is a metal mechanical device with wood, plastic, or neoprene grips. It does nothing, it means nothing, it doesn’t eat drink ,or breathe. It just takes up space. Why do people hate guns? “Well, they kill people” No, as my “smart ass remarks in the opening paragraph prove, you don’t need a gun to kill people. GROSS ALERT Hypothetically, if a man walks into a movie theater, school, or restaurant with a baseball bat. He will be able to crack quite a few skulls and kill a few people before somebody steps up and challenges him. No shots being fired. Replace the bat with a long knife or sword and you may have a few more deaths. Still that bat or sword, sitting on a table, hurts no one. The worst it does is it takes up space. Not until a supposedly higher life form picks it up ”with intent to do harm” do they become a weapon. Any and most every object has the potential to be a weapon . It is the person wielding the object that determines its purpose, good or evil.  CLICHÉ ALERT; “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns”. A carpenter’s hammer in the hands of a master carpenter can build and create objects and structures. In the hands of someone lacking a basic level of morals, character and conscience, it’s a weapon for gaining entry to your house or crack open your cranium if you try to stop him. A plumber’s pipe wrench in his hands is a tool for repairing things. In my hands, a good reason to call a plumber. In the hands of someone less noble than myself or said plumber, is a heavy metal object used to persuade someone to give up their goods. A surgeon’s scalpel is also a tool used to heal, in my hands a reason to quickly find a band aid and again in another’s an implement of destruction. All three sitting on a table with no one around to pick them up and use them are nothing more than an object lesson in the definition of matter, “anything that has mass and takes up space”. So it is with a gun. Should we outlaw hammers and wrenches?  When hammers are outlawed, will only outlaws have hammers? Definitely keep sharp objects away from me.

BORING STATISTIC ALERT!
In 2011, 160,000 people died from lung cancer. Of that number, 125,522 were smoking related and second hand smoking related deaths were up 20 to 30%. Gosh, it appears that smoking kills and not only kills the user but the person next to the user. Someone should do something to stop this senseless killing. I know, let’s make tobacco illegal, better yet, let’s keep it legal and tax the crap out of it!
93 people a day die in auto accidents. In 2011, 32,367people died needlessly in car wrecks. Of those, 11,000 were drunk driving related. I say we outlaw the “death machines”. We can’t? No, we can't. The President just spent billions of dollars bailing out the manufacturers of these vehicles of doom? Well maybe we should at least outlaw drinking and driving. It is illegal? If it’s illegal, why do they sell alcohol where they sell gas? That’s confusing. Well people are going to drink anyway and they have to drive so let’s make it more convenient for them.
Innocent life, (here we go), This year alone there were 1,205,418 abortions and 2,424 yesterday alone. This was a dynamic number as it changed several times while I was writing the stats down. These were all done in the name of “Choice” and someone’s right to choose. We’ve known for some time now, the process we have to go through in order to conceive a child. I believe there is also a "right to choose" prior to conception and we need to take responsibility for those choices we make. But, but ,but, what about rape and incest? Sorry less than a 10^th of a per cent of recorded abortions are because of rape and incest.
Cars are inanimate objects until a human starts the engine and a bottle of booze is harmless until the lid comes off and is consumed. The demon weed, tobacco, wouldn’t kill anyone if no one put a match to it. Abortion, I’m sorry but the male genitalia has been blamed for way too much in American society. Why aren’t these numbers more widely reported? Why don’t these numbers assault the American psyche. One reason is we like our cars, we like our booze we like our “innocent sinful”(there’s a contradiction) behaviors. But to appease our self righteous consciences we allow ourselves to “pick the atrocities” we will rage against. "Abort a baby but Save the Whales" We rage against the death of innocents by a gun or rifle and blame the gun. They are just inanimate objects taking up space. An inanimate object that in the hand of a trained, responsible person can provide food and safety for many. In the hand of another, take safety, peace and life from many. But make no mistake, it is an inanimate object with no will of its own. We believe it’s easier to blame the gun, to “control” the gun.
We have spent the last several decades teaching young people that it is okay to be disrespectful, irresponsible and undisciplined. We’ve taught them that everybody is good and a winner and no one loses. If they act up, we drug them. Gaining a sense of accomplishment and achievement means you’re “better” than someone else, and we can’t have that.  God help us if we should tear them away from their video games, like “Grad Theft Auto” and go outside to face reality. When these little social experiments gone wrong get out in the real world, they’re lost, dazed and confused.  When life doesn’t work out the way they were taught it would be, they rage and rebel, and we blame the “tool” they use to express their rage and rebellion. We certainly can’t blame them, they are after all merely the product of our imaginations. We can’t blame ourselves because that would be admitting fault and that just doesn’t feel good. We blame the gun.


One more boring statistic. It’s about the civil war in Rwanda in the 90’s;
Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

The Hutu, now without opposition from the world community, engaged in genocidal mania, clubbing and hacking to death defenseless Tutsi families with machetes everywhere they were found.

The killings only ended after armed Tutsi rebels, invading from neighboring countries, managed to defeat the Hutus and halt the genocide in July 1994. By then, over one-tenth of the population, an estimated 800,000 persons, had been killed.

Death of innocents is not pretty, where was the outrage. 10,000 a day killed with clubs and machetes. Well that wasn’t America and there were no guns involved? Except, Guns stopped the killing. Is there a small lesson there?

Blame the man wielding the weapon for making it good or making it evil. Do not blame the weapon for making the man good or evil. Somebody needs to take responsibility for their own actions, and they better do it soon. "I am a lover not a fighter but I will fight for the things I love"

Letter to a friend

Thank you for your response, I do like “spirited” conversation.  I guess my original response to your “WTF”, was a little vague but I hadn’t intended this to go any further. I will explain, I hope, a little better.

I refuse to “give politics a rest” because I believe, for far too long now the average citizen has been “giving politics a rest” and because, we the people haven’t been watching our elected officials close enough, we find ourselves $16 trillion in debt and we have more states than just California on the verge of bankruptcy. All because we the people weren’t vigilant and “gave politics a rest”, taxes are high and going higher, especially in Cali. The number of welfare and food stamp recipients is high and getting higher. Unemployment is at an all time high and as you pointed out, businesses are leaving Cali. in droves.

I am continually surprised at how much the average citizen knows and/or doesn’t know about their government federal, state or local. Some can recite team stats for the last 20 yrs for their favorite football team. Some are so involved with their teams that they will beat you bloody if they think you disrespect their team. These people are still looking for the pole at their polling place or wondering if polling that goofy sport from Europe? Do not get me wrong, I’m not picking on all sports fans. I enjoy sports as a diversion too, but whether or not my favorite team wins or loses does not have as a long lasting effect on my life and family as the decisions made supposedly on ”my behalf” by the elected officials in Sacto. or DC. More not less attention needs to be paid to what they are doing and how they are doing things “in our best interest”. I really wanted a couple of million $$ to study Tattoo removal or a couple million $$ for the study of the mating habits of the Mendocino Banana slug. These things are obviously vitally important issues facing our state and nation and we can “rest” easy knowing our elected officials have our best interests at heart. The definition of Politics; poli=many, tics=blood sucking insects. I rest my case, we can’t rest.

If I can, in some small way, get somebody’s interest up about what’s going on in politics by posting or reposting something on Face Book, I will. If I either “piss them off” or support what they already think, they end up with more knowledge on the subject and they can dig further for themselves. I believe that in the times we’re in, we best be more informed as to what is going on in our name, on our behalf, by our government officials. I believe Face Book was originally meant to be a vehicle for communication whether it is about last nights Bar B Que, telling the world about Jesus, or talking about the “Knot heads” on Capital Hill, people will be talking, and that’s a good thing. Then again, thanks to FB, e-mail and texting, the art of conversation is slowly dying, but that’s for another time.

I see by your brief comment and from your previous posts that we are on opposite sides of the “aisle”, and that’s fine, I can live with that. I’m pretty certain I can blow most of your arguments out of the water but I doubt I’ll ever change your mind on any of them. I also see where we agree in general terms on some things. That’s the commonality of politics and religion. See, there is no separation of church and state. J We can agree to disagree. We can continue the discussion if you like but you are the one that wanted to "give it a rest".

Good talking with you.

Second Class Citizen or Equal

I’ve been watching the news of the goings on in Egypt and the Middle East.  One of many stories that has stuck out has been the assassination attempt by the Taliban on a 14 year old girl. A 14 year old girl, really guys? Feelin’ manly are ya? What’s her crime? Was she a member of a girl gang wanted for burglary, robbery, assault or murder? Nope, just a little Pakistani girl wanting to go to school as well as wanting all girls to be able to  go to school. Ooooo ! Dangerous….scary! Best stop her before this situation gets out of hand!  Another story was that Egyptian women were being raped and beaten in great numbers, to the point that most were no longer going out side their homes. The story has it that the wonderful gentlemen’s club, the Muslim Brotherhood was paying gangs to do it. What was behind this? They were protesting a “legal” decision made by the Brotherhood’s man Mohamed Morsi. In fairness the brotherhood was also paying gangs to beat on men that were protesting Morsi. That’s the kind of democracy some in our govt. feel we need to support.

Ever since we, years ago, put boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve heard horror stories of the atrocities perpetrated on girls and women, as well as men, in the name of their “peaceful” religion. Everything from the bold fashion statement of the Berka (which objectifies them just as much as posing nude, only at the other end of the spectrum) to family honor killings. Ahh yes, the religion of peace! Another question comes to mind from all these news stories; Where’s the outrage from the women’s groups in America? Where is NOW, where are the feminists, those bold women battling on the front lines for women’s rights? If ever there was a time and reason for them to speak up it is this and now. They are obviously really too busy helping women that are already healthy, educated and employed cover up their lapses in judgment and sexual indiscretions to bother with women forced to wear bags over their heads and shoveling camel dung for a living. Now maybe, just maybe, I just haven’t seen them because the media is not giving them the air time it used to. That thought will be for another time.

  

Quite a few years ago, I attended a Promise Keepers convention and was surprised to see the protests outside the stadium. The protesters really need to choose their battles better. If they had done a little research they would have found that the Promise Keepers organization was urging men and teaching them how to, be better men, husbands and fathers. Now there’s a real threat to women and society. Then there was a protest of the results of a Southern Baptist conference, I refer to the one around 2003 where the media reported the outcome was “wives need to submit more to their husbands” and not much else.  I have to cut them a little slack on this because I’m not certain the main stream media with their “love of the Christian church” reported it correctly. They could have the transcripts and recordings and with reporters in attendance, still “spin” it to make it look like the Spanish Inquisition. My point being, there is more outrage with the way the Christian church and organizations like Promise Keepers supposedly look at and treat women, than the outright blatant abuse of girls and women in the Middle East and elsewhere.. 

Because of the unique ability of some in the media and certain women’s groups to pass judgment on things they apparently haven’t a clue about, I thought I might vent a little about how marriage in the Christian church is being treated in the media and by some groups. Especially how women are treated as second class citizens in the Christian marriage. I will probably lose a few points on my “guy card” but what the heck, I haven’t been to a “He-man Women Haters Club” meeting in years.

In defense of the Promise Keepers; what’s wrong with men taking more responsibility for their actions towards their wives and families? Only the truly paranoid would see something wrong with that. After all, feminists have for years been complaining about how men are undisciplined, irresponsible, beer swilling chauvinist pigs. Why they even burned their bras as a sign of protest and liberation. (?) Obviously anytime a group of men get together, they are planning on how to enslave their girlfriends, wives and women in general. The fact that their girlfriends and wives suggested, recommended, or asked them to go, has little to do with it.

In defense of the Southern Baptists; I can only assume that the media did their usual self-serving job, reporting only the portions that made a good story or promoted their point of view. As I see it, although we have some denominational differences, the truth is truth and I will present it as I see it.

A woman’s place, as written in the Bible, has long been misunderstood. To begin to understand, we must first start at the beginning.

Genesis 1:27 says “ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

The word “man” in this verse translates from the Hebrew as human being, species or mankind. Not the male of the species, it is also spelled Adam. Go figure. The word image translates to resemblance. God created him male and female He created them.

God created mankind to resemble Him, male and female. Male and female all rolled into one tidy bundle. God is neither male nor female, but both, male and female. In Genesis 1:26 God creates man, the essence of man the spiritual being.  In Genesis 2:7 God creates from the “dust of the Earth” the physical being and breathed into his nostrils the “breath of life”; and the physical man became a living being. God injected into the physical man his essence, or spiritual self and man became the total package, spirit and body.

In Genesis 2:18 God says, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Please notice how He said a “helper”, not a slave or servant. Also this “helper” was to be comparable to him. In other words; his equal.

So, our man Adam checked out all the birds, cattle, and critters, and every beast of the field. “ But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.” Gen. 2:20.  This means that no matter the brain capacity or supposed language skills of the porpoise or the problem solving skills of the chimpanzee or any other characteristics of any other animal, none were found worthy to be compared to Adam, or mankind. Nor should they be!

So, having found no worthy helper in the animal kingdom, God gets creative again.(‘cause He can do that) Genesis 2: 21&22  “The Lord caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep; and He took one of his ribs and closed up his flesh in it’s place.” “Then the rib which the Lord had taken from man, He made into a woman and He brought her to the man.”

God took the “total package man” with the male/female spirit being, split it in two gave each its own body and there you have it boys and girls, boy and girl. The only way to give man a helper comparable to himself was to take a part of him, out of him and make another being. Not take the bad and leave the good, or take the good and leave the bad. Just take a part of one and make another.

  Notice all Gods creatures were made from the dust of the Earth except the woman. She was the only one brought out of an existing being. Just an interesting point. There’s an old wives tale/urban myth that women have one more rib than men because of the whole Adam’s rib story. Nope, we be equal, in that particular anatomical area.

Verse 23 has Adam saying “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; and she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” There is no servant, slave, or second class citizen to be seen. Sounds pretty equal so far. Verse 24 says “ Therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

I hope you noticed that it said that when a man is joined to his wife, they shall become one flesh.  Any first year anatomy student can see that certain physical differences between man and woman were made to compliment each other. They shall become one flesh; the total package once again like before chap. 2: 21. Think about it.

Notice that it doesn’t say a man and a man or a woman and a woman, a boy and his dog or a girl and a girl’s best friend. (diamonds ?)  It says a man and his wife. There is not now nor will there ever be a relationship like that of a husband and wife. The two, when done properly and according to Gods will, will compliment and complete (thank you Jerry Maguire) each other so that they become as one flesh. Even worldly scholars mention how a couple becomes more like each other as time goes by in mannerisms and characteristics, and sometimes physical appearance.

Still, ain’t seeing no second class citizen.

I’d be willing to bet that there are darn few people that haven’t heard the story of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, the apple and the snake, so I’ll move on. The punishment phase of the story is a little less known. In Genesis 3: 16 it says “ I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain, you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Bummer! For those keeping score, read Gen. 3:17-19 to see that Adam didn’t get away clean himself. Among other things, ol’ Adam went from “tending” to “toiling” in this world. The difference between “getting to”and “having to”, one you enjoy doing the other you have to do to survive.  It is however; quite obvious that it was not Gods original intention to have the woman be the servant to the man. Refer back to Gen.2: 18. It was only after the “original sin” and the woman’s part in it did that come about.

To recap;

God created mankind in His own image. (spiritually speaking) He then made the physical man out of the dust of the Earth. He wanted to give man a companion, but could not find one equal or comparable to him out of all the critters on Earth, furred, feathered, or finned. So God split the spiritual being in two, made a new body for the new kid in the garden. When the two are united in a God ordained fashion as husband and wife, the two become one once again.  Division came into the Earth with the original sin and has been trying to split man and woman, husband and wife ever since.

In Matthew 12:25, Mark 3:25, and Luke 11:17, Jesus is quoted as saying, “… a house divided against itself cannot stand.”  When the institution of marriage and the family is divided against itself, you end up with single parent homes, improper parental role models, children growing up confused about their roles in life, children growing up too soon or thinking they are adults, without any sense of respect, responsibility, or self discipline. A broad generalization I know, but read the newspaper and prove me wrong.

Deterioration of society due to the deterioration of the family due to the deterioration of the God ordained relationship between husband and wife, man and woman.

Oh what can we do, what can we do?!

Glad you asked.

Romans 5: 12 says “… through one man sin entered the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all have sinned…”. Romans 5:18&19 says, “Therefore through one mans offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one mans righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one mans obedience many will be made righteous.”

In other words, because Adam and Eve sinned, the world is in the mess it’s in. But because Jesus submitted to Gods will, submitted to persecution and death, we do not have to live in this mess we’re in. Jesus has restored the equal relationship between men and women. Because of His submission to the will of God on our behalf, the two can once again become one. The catch is, we have to submit to Jesus which is also the will of God.

Ephesians 5:21 says we should “submit one to another in the fear of the Lord.” In other words, we should all make ourselves available to serve each other. You to me, him to her, and she to he. We should all be ready willing and able to help meet the needs of our brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. Submitting is not a bad thing in and of itself. To whom or what you submit to is what determines if the submission is good or bad. I heard Bob Dylan song once with a verse that fits well right here. “You’re going to have to serve somebody. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you’re going to have to serve somebody.” Thank you Mr. Zimmerman.

Jesus’ whole life teaches us about submission. Here is the Son of God, the son of the creator of the universe, meeting and serving the needs of anyone and everyone that believed and had faith. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and as an object lesson, washed the feet of His disciples, in order to teach them submission. Jesus says in Matthew 20: 26-28, “ … whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave, - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Jesus submitted His life to Gods will and died that we might live.  So when you read Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as though unto the Lord” This is the verse that most men love to quote in reference to marriage and then they forget to read on. I know a couple of supposedly Christian (not my call to make) men that rode that pony all the way to divorce court. They do however, prove the concept of “sowing and reaping”, sow division reap division, with a harvest of 30, 60 or 100%

 You may ask why wives have to submit and husbands don’t? Well, they do, remember verse 21 and in Eph. 5:25 we see that the Lord wants “husbands to love their wives as Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for it.” (Many men get temporary blindness at verse 25 and only recover around chapter 6) So what all did Jesus’ love for the church include? Only total dedication and selflessness even unto death. If you’re keeping score, wives are told to serve their men, but husbands are told to die for their wives. That would mean total dedication to her even unto death. Who gets the theoretical dirty end of that stick? Then to emphasize the mans responsibility to his wife, verses 28 & 29 ; So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh but nourishes it and cherishes it even as the Lord the church.  Verses 28 and 29 definitely bring it back around to Genesis 2:21 & 22 and then 23, “bone of my bone , flesh of my flesh.”Except for that dying part it may sound cut and dried and relatively simple. Be advised, the learning curve is huge! But it can be done.

John 10:10 says “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” For the Christian relationship to prosper and flourish, acceptance of and submission to Jesus is essential. Relationships can, have, and will work with only one partner having accepted Jesus, but it will not work as well, and will be more of a struggle. Non-Christian marriages can and do work, but I wouldn’t want to go up against those odds today. Just check out the divorce rate statistics. I know, the divorce rate for supposed Christians is as high, but know this; just as hanging out in a garage, doesn’t make you a car; going to church once a week, doesn’t mean you’re living a Christian life. Relationships work better when you work Gods plan instead of you own.

Amos 3:3 asks the question, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Matthew 18:19-20 says, “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Imagine Jesus, right there with you in your marriage, giving you the answers you need and serving just like He teaches us to do, just because two agree as one.

What does the Bible say about husbands, wives, and marriage? You certainly won’t find out by reading the paper or watching the news, so I’ll give you a few verses to chew on.

Proverbs 5:18

Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

Proverbs 12:4

A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.

Proverbs 14:1

Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

Those last two verses seem to say that a wife has some power over not only her life but her husbands as well. Please use it wisely.

Proverbs 18:22

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.

Proverbs 19:14

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.

Being considered a gift from God sure doesn’t sound like a second class citizen to me.

Proverbs 31:10-31 clearly defines the modern woman of today, hard working, resourceful, intelligent, shrewd businessperson. Check it out.

10.  Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

 11.  The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

 12.  She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

 13.  She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

 14.  She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

 15.  She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

 16.  She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

 17.  She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

 18.  She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

 19.  She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

 20.  She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

 21.  She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

 22.  She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

 23.  Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

 24.  She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

 25.  Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

 26.  She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

 27.  She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

 28.  Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

 29.  Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

 30.  Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31.    Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Ecclesiastes 9:9

Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity.

Malachi 2:14,15

…the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

…and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

1Peter 3:1

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

A verse used by some men in an attempt to save their authoritative position as “lord of the Manor” is 1 Timothy 2:12 “But I do not permit a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.”  The problem I have with this is we’re not talking about “authority over “someone but equality with someone and, it’s not a problem but an observation, Paul clearly states “I do not permit….” There are several places in scripture where Paul interjects his personal feelings into his Spirit inspired teachings & letters but he also separates it from the rest of what he is saying. “I find this a faithful saying…” or “I would that all be as me…” but be sure he makes it known that they are his feelings. Consume that as you will.

I know some Christians that do believe in the total submission of the wife to the husband, and I believe it is okay to do so, as long as both and especially the wife is in agreement to those conditions. If she doesn’t agree then the “house is divided” and it will not stand. That is not to say that the wife always has to be in agreement with the husband. The husband needs to be in agreement with the wife too. Husbands, if you are going to insist on submission, remember “…as Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for it.” They are after all equals, and they are partners.

 Can two walk together unless they are agreed?

… and they shall become one flesh.

And there you have it, good luck with that.

Equal?

So there I was,

Listening to what might be considered an opposing view to mine and it struck me, nobody has ever presented an interesting but often overlooked aspect of the socialist/secular progressive philosophy of government that is, you will still have the dreaded “haves and have-nots”. They, those that promote socialism, will only tell you how happy fair and equal we will all be. I hate to tell you this but there will always be people with more and there will always be people with less, only the names will change to protect the guilty. The guilty being those that have perpetrated the socialist ideals on an unsuspecting society. Some people that have-not are just upset that other people are willing to take advantage of their freedom to succeed to become haves. Oddly enough, some people that don’t actually do anything for the people that have-not except add to their numbers, will, through their efforts, become haves themselves and then mysteriously distance themselves from the have-nots, all the while telling them, “we’re here for you and we care!”  

 Have you ever noticed that the people in power, these people that are, oh so concerned about the “downtrodden” and lack of fairness in society, take vacations and holidays that would make Warren Buffet feel guilty and all “on your dime” with your money, without so much as a thank you for the trip! Upon return, they then jump in front of TV cameras and resume to complain that the “big, rich business CEOs” are just “screwing the poor” and not paying their fair share.  By the way, these people after leaving office will be receiving some benefits for life. That is both sides of the aisle. Surprisingly, (or not so surprising) according to Business Insider and the Huffington Post, 7 out of 10 of the richest people in congress are Democrats. It boggles the mind.  To be imperfectly fair, according to Roll Call, only 18 out of the top 50 richest people in congress are Democrats. The difference is though, that conservatives, Republicans and more than a few Independents celebrate and reward hard work and success with no desire to punish the successful. Success will, the majority of the time, be followed by some form of financial prosperity, and that’s a good thing. The “seven out of ten”, (and I don’t mean them specifically), will yell and cry about the “three out of ten” not paying their fair share  and try to demonize and  “punish” them for their success by higher tax rates. Sort of a, “we’ll teach you to be a success “mentality, all the while using the same “tricks of the trade” i.e. Business and tax “loop holes” in order to maintain their position in the top ten. How do you spell hypocrisy?!

Call me naïve, but who is worse? The “MAN”(businessman) that works to provide a product and spends time and money to convince you to spend or give your money to them for what they are offering or the “MAN”(government) that just flat out tells you how much you will pay him whether you want to or not and maybe tell you where it goes. If he actually told you where your money goes, you would be less likely to so freely let him stick his hands in your pockets. They are public servants. At least that’s what they told you they wanted to be when you gave them your money to attain that position. By definition they are here to serve the public. I suppose if you consider that they make it possible for the “have-nots” to remain as such, yes, someone is being served. But are YOU being served? Where else but the grand institution of government  does the “employee” (them) tell the “employer” (us) what he’s going to do, regardless of the “employers” wishes, wants and desires and how much money he’s going to take from the boss to do it. Don’t get me wrong, it irks me no end when I hear of huge raises, bonuses, and retirements for CEOs etc., especially right after they layoff half their employees or close down completely. I believe that it exhibits a definite lack of character. But here’s the thing, that is private money, acquired by providing the public a product or service that the public at large deems necessary or desirable.   Unless it’s……….wait for it……Stimulus! The Govt. takes our money and gives it to companies that have put themselves in trouble, some with the governments help, and then they send management on vacation as gratuity for helping them get in trouble in the first place and the Govt. doesn’t even slap their hands. Yeah, that’s stimulating!

Tell me, do these crusaders for the poor and downtrodden spend all their time shaking all the right hands, kissing all the right babies and/or butts, and making all the right promises to anyone they can get to believe them, just so after “clawing their way“ to the political top, climb back down to hang out with the poor and downtrodden they may have mistakenly  elevated to a higher level of poverty? It’s very doubtful. Look at the great socialist leaders of the past and present.   Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore’s favorite dictator, Fidel Castro. They did help people to overcome oppressive regimes only to become the leaders of even more oppressive regimes. Oh, and let’s not forget the Kim Jongs both Il and Un. North Korea, the vacation capital of……no one. I hear tell that Un was voted “the worlds sexiest man” Could someone please send him the definition of sarcasm. It’s a safe bet that while their people were/are cold, starving, and doing without, they, these great leaders, weren’t/aren’t cold starving and doing without. I believe the term is “They be Livin’ Large”

I find it interesting that with history being played out right before our eyes, as in China, North Korea, Cuba and prior to the relatively recent fall of the Iron Curtain, a majority of the people in this country so readily endear themselves to the siren song of a socialist society. History has proven time and again, it just don’t work. I guess the song and dance put out there by some for all people being equal and no one lacks or wants for anything, is desirable enough for the “common sense switch” to be turned off. Think about it, somebody somewhere out there will get disillusioned, disgruntled and realizing that with a little extra effort, they can have more. There’s the fly in the ointment, the hair in the soup. Some “fool” somewhere will always want more and be willing to do what it takes to have more and spoil it for everybody, especially when they see that the “new boss” ain’t cold, ain’t hungry, and ain’t lacking. He’ll say to himself, “self, why can’t I have what they have?” This, by the way, will upset the “new boss”

So regardless of which form of govt. we have, can we agree that we’ll still have the rich and the poor. The haves and the have-nots. Sure we may all be at the same level, but the same level of poverty and lack is still worse than having the same opportunity to progress and succeed whether or not we take advantage of the opportunity. Can we also agree that regardless of who is in power, those in the positions of power will, no matter how much they say to the opposite, not be feeling the cold, hunger and lack of those they supposedly serve? The band “The Who” was right “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!” At least the new have-nots can say “the new boss is OUR boss, the one we voted for.” Congratulations!

I’m sorry, but having the majority of the people equally at the same level of lack, and need is not to be considered success. But that is all you will achieve with socialism, and it is unsustainable, it will not and cannot last. The lack will increase. I was once told and please forgive me I can’t remember who or where, but there is enough wealth in the world that if it were evenly distributed, every living human being on Earth would be a millionaire. The catch is that within a ten year period, (if that long) everyone that had abundance before would have it again and those that had nothing to begin with, would again have nothing. It’s all attitude and taking advantage of opportunity.  The Bible says in Matt 25:29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have even that what he has will be taken away. That’s red print in my bible so it was Jesus speaking, and it applies to every aspect of life, spiritual, mental, emotional, physical, social, and financial. That same man, Jesus, said “the poor you will have with you always” Matt. 26:11 This “wise man” came to seek and save the lost, feed the poor, heal the sick and set the captive free. This wise man also knew that not every captive wanted to be set free. He often asked,”what is it you want me to do”? Their problems were obvious but he wanted to know where their heads and hearts were at. It was their choice. “The poor you will have with you always.”Why? Human nature.

I am not, compared to some, “well read”, but I have opened a book or two in my life. I read books like I watch movies, for entertainment only. If there is a socially redeeming message to it, it won’t be in the top five to see or read. Then there are some that after you are duped into watching or reading you find a message. When I think of a socialist society, three books come to mind. George Orwell’s Animal Farm. (1945) The book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917, and then on into Stalinist Russia. The one phrase that sticks out in this case, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Then there is the famous “1984”(1949) by Orwell again. He may have missed the date but,  Big Brother IS (and will be) watching.

Finally H.G. Wells Time Machine, particularly the relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks.  The Eloi living in a euphoric paradise have nothing to do but lay about in the sun and enjoy life to the point that they no longer know how to provide and care for themselves. The Morlocks living underground are providing for the Eloi’s every need but not out of the kindness of their hearts. The Eloi are nothing more than cattle for the Morlock to feed from. Whether or not it was Wells intention to write a social commentary in 1895 or just good fiction, the commentary was made. I do keep in mind that we all see things differently, a little or a lot, so read these for yourself, and I suggest you read them before Fahrenheit 451(Ray Bradbury 1953) becomes reality.

In closing, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but for all of you that want social and economic equality that some people presently in power say they can give you. They can’t do it, it can’t happen or it can’t happen on any kind of a sustainable level. If you say, “oh well as long as I get mine”, then you are the problem and you have a bigger problem than capitalism.

One Nation Under God

We’ve been hearing more and more lately about a certain group of people that shall remain nameless(atheists) making  their usual fuss about Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and Christianity in general in public places. Their insistence has led some in public positions and offices to acquiesce to their wishes. Some due to a common belief and some just don’t want thelegal hassle of dealing with them. Nativity scenes are being removed and/or outlawed, Christmas trees are at the very least being renamed holiday trees if not removed completely. The phrase of the day is no longer “Merry Christmas” but “Happy Holidays”. All this because a small group of people are exercising their “constitutional right” to be whiners.

By the way , the word “holiday” is derived from the Old English “Holy day”, so thanks should be given to the whiners for reminding us that Christmas is a Holy Day.  

I’ve always felt and/or believed in my spirit that the concept of “the separation of church and state” was originally meant to protect the church from the state and not the state from the church, and that the state was to be guided by the word of God. Now, because of my Christian belief and faith, one would expect me to have such view on the church/state relationship.  I thought it a good thing that I should substantiate my belief.

One thing we always hear when the Supreme Court is trying to judge the constitutionality of one law or another is how to interpret the desires of the founding fathers when they framed the Constitution.  Forgive me for over simplifying this, but, wouldn’t they just look up the writings and legal documents of the leaders and politicians of the day, and their writings prior to the framing of the constitution and before they became politicians looking for reelection? I’m into quick and easy and the justices are probably trying to justify their paychecks.

  

One of the first and considered by some to be the first official legal document of the “new world” is the Mayflower Compact, and the writers of this document are considered the first official settlers of this nation.  As you look at the Mayflower Compact, you can see the desires these intrepid adventurers had for their new home.

I will, for brevity’s sake, print only the parts of documents pertaining to the point I’m trying to make. That point being, this nation was founded by “God fearing” people with Christian principals, and with a desire to propagate and or spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  If you think I’m leaving out something that might contradict this point of view, please feel free to look it up yourself. One of my major sources of information was found in The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Another is the book Original Intent

The Mayflower Compact was written in 1620 as an agreement between the settlers of the New Plymouth colony and goes as follows;

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: …..

We see the document starts off with a bang; IN THE NAME OF GOD,AMEN.(so be it)

Right off the bat they brought God into the mix. It is always a good thing in any new endeavor, get good backing! In the third line we see that they were putting themselves into a world of hurt knowing the outcome would bring glory to God. What God might this be?  After bringing glory to God they were traveling to the” New World” to advance the Christian Faith. Yep, That would be for the glory of the Judeo/Christian God and the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Also known as Christianity

This may be a wild shot but I’m a thinking these guys weren’t Moslems, Hindus or Buddhists. Hey, as far as I’m concerned, all are welcome here, but the guys that signed at the bottom of the Mayflower Compact were definitely Christian, and I’m thinking they had a mind to build a Christian nation.

The original 13 Colonies were, Virginia-1607, Mass.-1620, Maryland-1634, Conn.-1635, Rhode Is.-1636, Delaware-1638, New Hampshire-1638, N. Carolina-1653, S. Carolina-1663, New Jersey-1664, New York-1664, Penn.-1682, Georgia-1732.

These colonies can be considered the foundation of this nation. These people were the beginning of a nation and anybody following,  should and would have to come into agreement with them.

So what were the original 13 thinking? Check their Charters.

The First Virginia Charter April 10 1606

The charter starts with… “by the Grace of God”(get your backing), then we drop to Paragraph 3;

…by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God…

This pretty much says that these people were Christians, liked being Christian, and thought propagating the Christian faith was a good thing.

The Charter of New England : 1620(Mass.)

… by the Grace of God…  … in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty,

….

It was the hope of the masses of Mass. to “advance the enlargement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God.” What God?  The God of Abraham,  Issac, and Jacob.  Not Vishnu, Allah, or Buhdda.  Once again, all are welcome. Come on in take off your shoes, sit a spell. But excuse me, these guys were Christian!

These are the first two colonies chronologically speaking. 1606 & 1620. The next will be the last two, chronologically. 1682 & 1732

Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania-1681

Paragraph 2;

… by the Grace of God… and promote such usefull comodities as may bee of Benefit to us and Our Dominions, as also to reduce the savage Natives by gentle and just mamlers to the Love of Civil Societie and Christian Religion…

 If that’s a little too vague, then try;

Frame of Government of Pennsylvania
May 5, 1682

The Preface

When the great and wise God had made the world, of all his creatures, it pleased him to chuse man his Deputy to rule it: and to fit him for so great a charge and trust, he did not only qualify him with skill and power, but with integrity to use them justly. This native goodness was equally his honour and his happiness, and whilst he stood here, all went well; there was no need of coercive or compulsive means; the precept of divine love and truth, in his bosom, was the guide and keeper of his innocency. But lust prevailing against duty, made a lamentable breach upon it; and the law, that before had no power over him, took place upon him, and his disobedient posterity, that such as would not live comformable to the holy law within, should fall under the reproof and correction of the just law without, in a Judicial administration.

This the Apostle teaches in divers of his epistles: " The law (says he) was added because of transgression: " In another place, " Knowing that the law was not made for the righteous man; but for the disobedient and ungodly, for sinners, for unholy and prophane, for murderers, for wlloremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, and for man-stealers, for lyers, for perjured persons," &c., but this is not all, he opens and carries the matter of government a little further: " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil: wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." " He is the minister of God to thee for good." " Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake."

This settles the divine right of government beyond exception, and that for two ends: first, to terrify evil doers: secondly, to cherish those that do well; which gives government a life beyond corruption, and makes it as durable in the world, as good men shall be. So that government seems to me a part of religion itself, a filing sacred in its institution and end. For, if it does not directly remove the cause, it crushes the effects of evil, and is as such, (though a lower, yet) an emanation of the same Divine Power, that is both author and object of pure religion; the difference lying here, that the one is more free and mental, the other more corporal and compulsive in its operations: but that is only to evil doers; government itself being otherwise as capable of kindness, goodness and charity, as a more private society. They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government, than correction, which is the coarsest part of it: daily experience tells us, that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, make up much of the greatest part of government; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men, on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed Second Adam, the Lord from heaven. Thus much of government in general, as to its rise and end.

Sorry for the lengthy text but Mr. Penn thought it important enough to preface the Frame of Government of his state with it and more. I can’t help but wonder if William Penn, the author of the above text, was a Christian and believed in a Bible guided government.

Charter of Georgia : 1732

Paragraph 6; And for the greater ease and encouragement of our loving subjects and such others as shall come to inhabit in our said colony, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant, establish and ordain, that forever hereafter, there shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all persons inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said provinces and that all such persons, except papists, shall have a free exercise of their religion …..

Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777

ART. VI. The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county…  and they shall be of the Protestent religion …

.

Okay, so there’s the first two and last two colonies chronologically speaking of the first 13 and they all thought the Christian faith important enough to include it in on their charters, government frameworks, and or constitutions. I did briefly scan the middle nine colonial charters and found much the same words and thoughts. The truth be told they all had a tendency to be long winded. It’s to be expected when you have life without Cable TV. Feel free to check for yourselves.

Bottom line is, this country was founded on and relied upon Christian faith and Christian values. The evidence is there if you want to look.

There was approximately 150 years between the first Virginia charter and the writing of  the Constitution of Virginia. 1607-1776 Okay 169 yrs. to be exact. So had anything changed in that time? No.  Sec.16 of their constitution is dedicated to “the duty we owe the creator” & “the free exercise of religion”. You really ought to read Article 38 (XXXVIII) of the Constitution of South Carolina 1778. Quite an eye opener if I do say so.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

ArticleXXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, or no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession for his religious practice;

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the oath, or following affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Constitution of New Jersey; 1776

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner, agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; …

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

I’m going cross-eyed reading through all these Constitutions. Suffice it to say that all the ones I’ve read made many references to Christian Faith and values and the need to follow the same.

 This country was established as one nation under God!

The phrase or mention of “the separation of church and state” is not to be seen anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. The only mention of religion being Art.6 para.3 stating that no religious test is required as qualification to hold office. But that is not saying that Christianity does not have its place in government, just that no religious test would be taken.

Then comes the first amendment in the Bill Of Rights

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The first amendment is very clear, plain, and straightforward. I looked each word up in the dictionary and could derive no hidden meanings or secret codes

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It seems to me that the only way for the Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance in public places can be unconstitutional, is if there are laws stating that they must be posted. Or that all people, children included, must recite the pledge or else be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 So tell me; is there a federal law stating that the Ten Commandments shall be posted in Federal Courthouses? None that I can find. Is there a Federal law stating that little Johnny and Suzy have to say the pledge of allegiance with its dreaded “one nation under God” line.  None that I can find! So how can these normal everyday functions of American life be unconstitutional? There are no federal laws forcing people to do these dastardly deeds. So why does an organization like the ACLU try to have the Supreme Court rule whether or not the posting of the Ten commandments in a public place is constitutional? Why do they want to change the Pledge of Allegiance or have it thrown out of schools when there are no federal laws forcing little Johnny or Suzy to say it? Who can say? What can you say about an organization that supposedly fights for the “rights” of a group of people; by denying the “rights” of another group of people? Sounds hypocritical to me. By asking the Supreme Court to rule on a law, respecting an establishment of religion that doesn’t exist, but they are definitely trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof!  In essence, what they are asking the Supreme Court to do is create a law from the bench, which is not their place and is unconstitutional. The task of making laws, as we all should know belongs to the Legislature. But hey, I’m no lawyer. They aren’t asking for a law establishing a religion, but they are asking for a law respecting the establishment of religion. There is a difference, small, but a difference. And the ACLU has filed suits with less to stand on.

As you look at the charters of the original 13 colonies and the eventual Constitutions of their states, you can surmise that it was the intention of our founding fathers to establish this nation on Christian principals. And, it was the desire of our founding fathers to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. This being the case, it becomes obvious that the First Amendment to the Constitution was meant to protect the church in general and the Christian Church specifically, from the government and not the Government from the Church.

Some in the government fear the church. But the church, (the first church anyway), respected and honored the government as being ordained of God. Refer to Romans 13:1-7

¹Let 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. ²Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³For 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. ⁴For 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. ⁵Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. ⁶For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ⁷Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Please refer back to William Penn’s preface to the frame of government of Pennsylvania. Wonder where he got his inspiration for that?

I realize it’s hard to imagine the Government being appointed by God, especially the Government we have now, but if the Holy Spirit inspired word of God says it’s so, then it’s so. If the Christian Bible says that we’re to respect and honor our Government, then what does our Government have to fear from the Christian Church? Absolutely nothing! Well why do they? May I introduce you to the “human factor” and its selfish, sinful nature. Rather than seeing the freedom we have or can have with a life in Christ, they can only see rules and restrictions that could keep them from doing what they want to do and force them to do the right thing which is not always convenient, comfortable, fun, or immediately profitable.

 Okay; the colonial charters and subsequent constitutions establish the fact that our founding fathers were just a little bit Christian and, wanted to create a Christian nation and had a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the indigenous masses. So where did the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It’s not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment in that state. The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to then President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Sources: Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995.
And Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282.

The phrase came about because then President Thomas Jefferson rightly believed the federal government should not decide the doctrinal disputes of the Danbury Baptists Association. Put another way; protecting the Church from the State. His letter did not, however, disclose his belief in a Bible guided Government, or State protected from the Church. But please take note of how he closes the letter.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man…”.   Thomas Jefferson was either a Christian or a modern politician. So the "separation of church and state" was not and is not a constitutional law but an opinion of a former president.

Just to make this, hopefully a little clearer, consider this; Christianity is a philosophy based on the life and teachings of Jesus. The religions are the Baptist, the Catholic, the Lutheran , the Mormon, the Methodist and on and on. The individual denominations are the “church”or religions and according to the 1^st Ammendment, the government has no business telling us which denomination is best or which one we should, as Americans, be following. And they don't.

As an interesting side note, the fact that my main source of information was from a project done at Yale Law School, raises the question of early institutes of higher education.

Schools like Yale, Harvard, Columbia, etc. always seem to “crank out” candidates for jobs with the ACLU and their ongoing fight to stop the spread of the “evil” that is Christianity. Most people would be surprised to know that this country’s first schools, were created by Christians for Christians, and to educate people about Christianity in order to better spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world.

Higher education in the United States before 1870 was provided very largely in the tuitional colleges of the different religious denominations, rather than by the State. Of the 246 colleges founded by the close of the year 1860 . . . 17 were State institutions and but 2 or 3 others had any State connections.

The 1636 rules of Harvard declared:

“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him. Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiencytherein.”

Harvard was so dedicated to Christianity  that its two mottos were “ For the Glory of Christ” and “For Christ and the Church”

In 1692, the College of William and Mary was founded so that :

The youth may be piously enacted in good letters and manners and that the Christian faith may be propagated . . . to the Glory of Almighty God

In 1699, Yale was founded by 10 ministers in order:

“To plant, and under devine blessing, to propagate in this wilderness the blessed reformed Protestant religion”.

In 1746, Princeton was founded by the Presbyterians and required its students to attend public worship on the Sabbath… “and no student belonging to any class shall ignore them”.

Columbia (1787), originaly Kings College (1754) required its candidates to “be able to render into English … the Gospels from the Greek”

The list continues, Dartmouth college 1754, Rutgers University 1766, and on and on.

 (source: Original Intent, David Barton)

Originally founded on Christian principals, teaching Christian truths, with at least one of their main goals being  to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world. What are they teaching now?

  Read the papers, watch the news. This state of the nation is full of examples of their new curriculum of “higher education”.

Am I saying teach nothing but Judeo/Christian ethics and principals? No, not hardly. There is a big beautiful world out there that my God gave to us to learn about experience and enjoy, and a good  education enables us to just that more fully.

 But never lose sight of the basic foundation of education or the “original intent” of the first educators in this country.

This Nation was started and established by Christians so the Gospel of Jesus could be spread further throughout the world. Once again; all people and religions are welcome to come and enjoy the benefits of a Christian country and lifestyle and hopefully one day come to see the truth.  But make no mistake; this is a Christian country!

Imagine where we would be now as a nation if we had stayed the course for the last 382 years, or if we had just not taken such a large LEFT turn in 1961.

Imagine where we can go if we would return to the covenant that we, as a Nation, made with God back in 1620!

AMEN!