Categories
The Watchmen on The Wall of JESUS CHRIST
3 likes Cause
EZEKIEL: A Watchman The Word of the LORD came to me: "Son of Man", speak to your countrymen and say to them, "When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land chose one of their man and make him their watchman, and sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then, if anyone hear the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. EZEKIEL's ministry begins in Babylon with condemnation and judgment of the nation, JUDAH. But after the destruction of Jerusalem takes place, Ezekiel's perspective changes. The past is gone, but there is a glimmer of hope shining through for the future. Ezekiel, who wants to help the people learn from their failure, announces impending judgment upon the nations that surround Judah and reestablishes hope for the restoration of Israel. His vision of the valley of dry bones pictures new life being breathed into the nation (Chapter 37). Ezekiel concludes with his return to Jerusalem in a vision to receive details on the new temple, the new Jerusalem, and the new land. Israel and Judah will once again be restored to unity from the ends of the earth, as GOD's glory also returns. GOD always has and always will hate sin. The ways of GOD contrast with the ways of the world. We are each responsible for our own sins. We are together accountable for the sins of our nation. As will any loving father, GOD will discipline us for our disobedience. GOD's promise of restoration for his people will undeniably be fulfilled.
Dan Franklin
Guy St. Onge
Remy P Parrott III%
The Watchmen on The Wall of JESUS CHRIST
3 likes Cause
EZEKIEL: A Watchman The Word of the LORD came to me: "Son of Man", speak to your countrymen and say to them, "When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land chose one of their man and make him their watchman, and sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then, if anyone hear the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. EZEKIEL's ministry begins in Babylon with condemnation and judgment of the nation, JUDAH. But after the destruction of Jerusalem takes place, Ezekiel's perspective changes. The past is gone, but there is a glimmer of hope shining through for the future. Ezekiel, who wants to help the people learn from their failure, announces impending judgment upon the nations that surround Judah and reestablishes hope for the restoration of Israel. His vision of the valley of dry bones pictures new life being breathed into the nation (Chapter 37). Ezekiel concludes with his return to Jerusalem in a vision to receive details on the new temple, the new Jerusalem, and the new land. Israel and Judah will once again be restored to unity from the ends of the earth, as GOD's glory also returns. GOD always has and always will hate sin. The ways of GOD contrast with the ways of the world. We are each responsible for our own sins. We are together accountable for the sins of our nation. As will any loving father, GOD will discipline us for our disobedience. GOD's promise of restoration for his people will undeniably be fulfilled.
Dan Franklin
Guy St. Onge
Remy P Parrott III%
AGENDA 2030:  U.N./One World Government
2 likes Cause
Satan’s World Strategy: U.N./One World Government God gave mankind dominion over the earth and thereby established a theocracy as the world’s original form of government (Gen. 1:26–29). In a theocracy, God’s rule is administered by a representative. God appointed the first man, Adam, to be His representative, with the responsibility to administer God’s rule over the earthly province of God’s universal Kingdom. Not long after this appointment, Satan induced Adam and Eve to join him in his revolt against God (Gen. 3:1–13). As a result, mankind fell away from God; and the theocracy vanished from the earth. In addition, through Adam’s defection, Satan usurped the rule of the world system away from God; and Satan and his forces have been ruling the world system ever since. Several factors reveal this tragic transition. DENIAL . Denial of Divine Revelation. Satan had authority to offer the rule of the world system to whomever he wished, including Jesus Christ, because that authority had been handed to him by Adam (Lk. 4:5–6). For this reason, Jesus called Satan the “prince [literally, “ruler”] of this world” (Jn. 14:30). John said the whole world lies in wickedness (1 Jn. 5:19), and James declared that whoever is a friend of the present world system is the enemy of God (Jas. 4:4). Satan will try to convert that invisible, spiritual dominion into a permanent, visible, political kingdom-rule of the whole world. To accomplish that goal, Satan must induce the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government. Thus far in history, Satan’s rule over the world system has been an invisible, spiritual dominion that instigates worldviews and philosophies contrary to ultimate reality. Scripture reveals that in the future, Satan will try to convert that invisible, spiritual dominion into a permanent, visible, political kingdom-rule of the whole world. To accomplish that goal, Satan must induce the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government. He must also condition the world to accept an ultimate political ruler who will possess unique powers and make great claims about himself. Through the secular, humanistic emphasis of the southern phase of the Renaissance and some emphases of the Enlightenment, Satan undermined the biblical faith of significant parts of Protestantism and beliefs of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the world was being told that no divine revelation of truth had been given to mankind. However, the only way the existence of God; His nature; thoughts; ways; actions; and relationship to the universe, Earth, and mankind can be known is through divine revelation of truth. Thus the denial of such revelation prompted many people of the 20th century to conclude that the personal, sovereign, creator God of the Bible does not exist; or, if He does exist, He is irrelevant to the world and mankind. This denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted radical changes of great consequence for society and the world. First, it has thrown many people into despair. God created human beings to need a personal relationship with Him for ultimate meaning and purpose in life. The conclusion that God does not exist or is irrelevant has caused a spiritual void inside people. That void leads to despair concerning attaining ultimate meaning and purpose in life. Satan offers witchcraft, spiritism, Satan worship, other forms of the occult, astrology, oriental mysticism, New Age concepts, drugs, some forms of music, and other demonic substitutes to fill that void and bring people under his influence. . Denial of Moral Absolutes. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the denial of moral absolutes. The argument goes like this: If moral absolutes were not revealed by a sovereign God who holds individuals responsible for their actions, then the traditional moral absolutes must have been developed by mankind. And since mankind was the source of those absolutes, mankind has the right to reject, change, or ignore them. As a result of this faulty reasoning, society has experienced an incredible breakdown of morality. It rejects the idea that only heterosexual, marital relationships are moral; and it increasingly despises and threatens advocates of such a position. Movements are afloat to legally redefine the historic concept of marriage and force society to accept that redefinition, to abolish capital punishment for murderers, to abolish or redefine the family, and to protect the propagation of pornography. The killing of unborn and partially born human beings already has been legalized. Some insist that no moral issues are involved with assisted suicide, human cloning, and the destruction of viable human embryos for the sake of stem cell research. Lying and cheating are condoned. This moral breakdown threatens the foundation of society. . Denial of Objective Truth and Standards. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the conclusion that there is no objective truth that is binding on all mankind. Each individual determines what is truth for himself or herself. Consequently, what is truth for one person is not truth for another, and truth has been made subjective and relative. This reasoning has prompted the further conclusion that there is no objective standard by which a person can evaluate whether something is right or wrong, and no person can legitimately tell another that what he or she has done is wrong. According to this reasoning, a person should never tell another that his or her lifestyle is wrong, even though that lifestyle may cause premature death. No one should ever tell teenagers they should abstain from sex until marriage. No one has the right to impose a concept of right or wrong on another. This denial of objective truth and an objective standard of right and wrong is propagated through values clarification courses in grade schools, colleges and universities, the media, Internet, publications, some forms of music, and the entertainment industry. Some colleges and universities have adopted speech police to squelch any expression of objective right and wrong by faculty or students. Such action amounts to intolerant censorship. The denial of objective truth and an objective standard of right and wrong has motivated some to advocate that parents be forbidden to spank their children for doing something the parents believe is wrong. REDEFINING . Redefinition of Tolerance. It also has prompted a movement to force society to accept a new concept of tolerance. The historic view of tolerance taught that people of differing opinions and practices were to live together peaceably. Individuals had the right to believe that a contrary opinion or practice was wrong and to express that belief openly; but they did not have the right to threaten, terrorize, or physically harm those with whom they disagreed. But tolerance has been redefined. The new concept asserts that to believe or openly express that an opinion or practice of a person or group is wrong amounts to a hate crime and should be punished by law. Powerful groups are pressuring the U.S. Congress to make this new concept federal law by passing a proposed anti-hate law. Since laws against threatening, terrorizing, or physically harming people or groups holding differing opinions and exercising different practices already exist, it is obvious that the goal of this bill is to outlaw freedom of belief and speech. Passage of this bill will turn America into a police state comparable to those that adopted the Inquisition and Communism. Because the world has been led to believe there is no objective truth binding on all mankind and no objective standard by which to evaluate whether something is right or wrong, it increasingly advocates that all gods, religions, and ways must be accepted as equal; that all attempts to convert people from one religion to another should be stopped; and that exclusive claims of only one true God, one true religion, and one way to heaven are a divisive form of bigotry. Religious pluralism is becoming the order of the day. If there is no objective standard for determining right or wrong, then on what basis can a society or individual conclude that murder is wrong, including the murders of doctors who perform abortions or the mass murders at schools, businesses, or other public places? Perhaps some of those violent acts are the result of their perpetrators concluding that, since there is no objective standard of right and wrong, murder is right for them. If Congress passes the anti-hate bill, will it be enforced on the proponents of that bill, since they want it passed because they believe and openly express that the opinions and practices of some other persons and groups are wrong? Will it be enforced on politicians who, in their campaigns for election and in sessions of Congress, openly express their beliefs that opinions and practices of their opponents are wrong? . The Drive for Unity. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the growing conviction that the goal of mankind should be unity. The Humanist Manifesto II states, We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. It asserts further, “We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. . . . Humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.” In light of this thought that salvation from total destruction depends on mankind itself, the Manifesto declares, We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. Finally, it states, Commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. The existence of international institutions, such as the World Court and the United Nations; the means for rapid travel and instantaneous communication; and the advancing internationalization of economics make the formation of a unified world community appear possible. The tremendous increase of violence, including the threat of worldwide terrorism, may drive civilization toward a unified world government for the sake of survival. DEIFYING . Deification of Mankind. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted a tendency to deify mankind. Thomas J. J. Altizer, one of the Protestant “God is dead” theologians of the 1960s, claimed that, since mankind has denied the existence of a personal God, it must as a race achieve human self-transcendence, which is “man-godhood.”5 Roman Catholic scholar Pierre Teilhard de Chardin taught that the god to be worshiped is the one who will arise out of the evolving human race. Through such changes prompted by the denial of divine revelation, Satan is seducing the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government and conditioning it to accept his ultimate political ruler, Antichrist, who will possess unique powers and claim to be God.
Remy P Parrott III%
AGENDA 2030:  U.N./One World Government
2 likes Cause
Satan’s World Strategy: U.N./One World Government God gave mankind dominion over the earth and thereby established a theocracy as the world’s original form of government (Gen. 1:26–29). In a theocracy, God’s rule is administered by a representative. God appointed the first man, Adam, to be His representative, with the responsibility to administer God’s rule over the earthly province of God’s universal Kingdom. Not long after this appointment, Satan induced Adam and Eve to join him in his revolt against God (Gen. 3:1–13). As a result, mankind fell away from God; and the theocracy vanished from the earth. In addition, through Adam’s defection, Satan usurped the rule of the world system away from God; and Satan and his forces have been ruling the world system ever since. Several factors reveal this tragic transition. DENIAL . Denial of Divine Revelation. Satan had authority to offer the rule of the world system to whomever he wished, including Jesus Christ, because that authority had been handed to him by Adam (Lk. 4:5–6). For this reason, Jesus called Satan the “prince [literally, “ruler”] of this world” (Jn. 14:30). John said the whole world lies in wickedness (1 Jn. 5:19), and James declared that whoever is a friend of the present world system is the enemy of God (Jas. 4:4). Satan will try to convert that invisible, spiritual dominion into a permanent, visible, political kingdom-rule of the whole world. To accomplish that goal, Satan must induce the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government. Thus far in history, Satan’s rule over the world system has been an invisible, spiritual dominion that instigates worldviews and philosophies contrary to ultimate reality. Scripture reveals that in the future, Satan will try to convert that invisible, spiritual dominion into a permanent, visible, political kingdom-rule of the whole world. To accomplish that goal, Satan must induce the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government. He must also condition the world to accept an ultimate political ruler who will possess unique powers and make great claims about himself. Through the secular, humanistic emphasis of the southern phase of the Renaissance and some emphases of the Enlightenment, Satan undermined the biblical faith of significant parts of Protestantism and beliefs of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the world was being told that no divine revelation of truth had been given to mankind. However, the only way the existence of God; His nature; thoughts; ways; actions; and relationship to the universe, Earth, and mankind can be known is through divine revelation of truth. Thus the denial of such revelation prompted many people of the 20th century to conclude that the personal, sovereign, creator God of the Bible does not exist; or, if He does exist, He is irrelevant to the world and mankind. This denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted radical changes of great consequence for society and the world. First, it has thrown many people into despair. God created human beings to need a personal relationship with Him for ultimate meaning and purpose in life. The conclusion that God does not exist or is irrelevant has caused a spiritual void inside people. That void leads to despair concerning attaining ultimate meaning and purpose in life. Satan offers witchcraft, spiritism, Satan worship, other forms of the occult, astrology, oriental mysticism, New Age concepts, drugs, some forms of music, and other demonic substitutes to fill that void and bring people under his influence. . Denial of Moral Absolutes. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the denial of moral absolutes. The argument goes like this: If moral absolutes were not revealed by a sovereign God who holds individuals responsible for their actions, then the traditional moral absolutes must have been developed by mankind. And since mankind was the source of those absolutes, mankind has the right to reject, change, or ignore them. As a result of this faulty reasoning, society has experienced an incredible breakdown of morality. It rejects the idea that only heterosexual, marital relationships are moral; and it increasingly despises and threatens advocates of such a position. Movements are afloat to legally redefine the historic concept of marriage and force society to accept that redefinition, to abolish capital punishment for murderers, to abolish or redefine the family, and to protect the propagation of pornography. The killing of unborn and partially born human beings already has been legalized. Some insist that no moral issues are involved with assisted suicide, human cloning, and the destruction of viable human embryos for the sake of stem cell research. Lying and cheating are condoned. This moral breakdown threatens the foundation of society. . Denial of Objective Truth and Standards. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the conclusion that there is no objective truth that is binding on all mankind. Each individual determines what is truth for himself or herself. Consequently, what is truth for one person is not truth for another, and truth has been made subjective and relative. This reasoning has prompted the further conclusion that there is no objective standard by which a person can evaluate whether something is right or wrong, and no person can legitimately tell another that what he or she has done is wrong. According to this reasoning, a person should never tell another that his or her lifestyle is wrong, even though that lifestyle may cause premature death. No one should ever tell teenagers they should abstain from sex until marriage. No one has the right to impose a concept of right or wrong on another. This denial of objective truth and an objective standard of right and wrong is propagated through values clarification courses in grade schools, colleges and universities, the media, Internet, publications, some forms of music, and the entertainment industry. Some colleges and universities have adopted speech police to squelch any expression of objective right and wrong by faculty or students. Such action amounts to intolerant censorship. The denial of objective truth and an objective standard of right and wrong has motivated some to advocate that parents be forbidden to spank their children for doing something the parents believe is wrong. REDEFINING . Redefinition of Tolerance. It also has prompted a movement to force society to accept a new concept of tolerance. The historic view of tolerance taught that people of differing opinions and practices were to live together peaceably. Individuals had the right to believe that a contrary opinion or practice was wrong and to express that belief openly; but they did not have the right to threaten, terrorize, or physically harm those with whom they disagreed. But tolerance has been redefined. The new concept asserts that to believe or openly express that an opinion or practice of a person or group is wrong amounts to a hate crime and should be punished by law. Powerful groups are pressuring the U.S. Congress to make this new concept federal law by passing a proposed anti-hate law. Since laws against threatening, terrorizing, or physically harming people or groups holding differing opinions and exercising different practices already exist, it is obvious that the goal of this bill is to outlaw freedom of belief and speech. Passage of this bill will turn America into a police state comparable to those that adopted the Inquisition and Communism. Because the world has been led to believe there is no objective truth binding on all mankind and no objective standard by which to evaluate whether something is right or wrong, it increasingly advocates that all gods, religions, and ways must be accepted as equal; that all attempts to convert people from one religion to another should be stopped; and that exclusive claims of only one true God, one true religion, and one way to heaven are a divisive form of bigotry. Religious pluralism is becoming the order of the day. If there is no objective standard for determining right or wrong, then on what basis can a society or individual conclude that murder is wrong, including the murders of doctors who perform abortions or the mass murders at schools, businesses, or other public places? Perhaps some of those violent acts are the result of their perpetrators concluding that, since there is no objective standard of right and wrong, murder is right for them. If Congress passes the anti-hate bill, will it be enforced on the proponents of that bill, since they want it passed because they believe and openly express that the opinions and practices of some other persons and groups are wrong? Will it be enforced on politicians who, in their campaigns for election and in sessions of Congress, openly express their beliefs that opinions and practices of their opponents are wrong? . The Drive for Unity. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted the growing conviction that the goal of mankind should be unity. The Humanist Manifesto II states, We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. It asserts further, “We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. . . . Humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.” In light of this thought that salvation from total destruction depends on mankind itself, the Manifesto declares, We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. Finally, it states, Commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. The existence of international institutions, such as the World Court and the United Nations; the means for rapid travel and instantaneous communication; and the advancing internationalization of economics make the formation of a unified world community appear possible. The tremendous increase of violence, including the threat of worldwide terrorism, may drive civilization toward a unified world government for the sake of survival. DEIFYING . Deification of Mankind. The denial of divine revelation of truth has prompted a tendency to deify mankind. Thomas J. J. Altizer, one of the Protestant “God is dead” theologians of the 1960s, claimed that, since mankind has denied the existence of a personal God, it must as a race achieve human self-transcendence, which is “man-godhood.”5 Roman Catholic scholar Pierre Teilhard de Chardin taught that the god to be worshiped is the one who will arise out of the evolving human race. Through such changes prompted by the denial of divine revelation, Satan is seducing the world to move toward the unification of mankind under a one-world government and conditioning it to accept his ultimate political ruler, Antichrist, who will possess unique powers and claim to be God.
Remy P Parrott III%
For Educational Purposes and Awareness
1 like Cause
BRIGITTE GABRIEL Founder of, ACT FOR AMERICA بريجيت غابرييل Birthname: Hanan Qahwaji DOB: October 21, 1964 (age 54) Birthplace: Marjayoun, Lebanon Residence Virginia Beach, Virginia, U.S.[1] Nationality Lebanese and American Other names: Nour Semaan; Brigitte Tudor Occupation Author, political activist, lecturer, journalist, conservative author, anti-Muslim activist, and founder of the group ACT! for America. Years active 1986–present Website American Congress for Truth, ACT! for America Brigitte Gabriel speaks on Refugee Crisis in Twin Falls, Idaho.jpg Brigitte Gabriel speaking in 2016 Early Life Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She claims that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family's house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food.[6] She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers. At one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine. Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She said of her experience: I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen...These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped. Education After graduating from high school, Gabriel completed a one-year business administration course at a YWCA in 1984. Career Using the pseudonym Nour Semaan, Gabriel was a news anchor for World News, an Arabic-language evening news broadcast of Middle East Television, which "was then run by Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network to spread his politically conservative, Pentecostal faith in the Middle East." The broadcasts covered Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Gabriel reported on the Israeli withdrawal from central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone (occupied South Lebanon), and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. She moved to Israel, before emigrating in 1989 to the United States. In February 2017, Gabriel said that she provided a "national security briefing" at the White House. She met with aides at the White House in March 2017. ACT! for America Main article: ACT! for America Her organization, ACT! for America, has been described by The New York Times as drawing "on three rather religious and partisan streams in American politics: evangelical Christian conservatives, hard-line defenders of Israel (both Jews and Christians) and Tea Party Republicans " and as anti-Islamic. According to The Washington Post, the organization "touted as its “first accomplishment” its 2008 campaign to shut down a Minnesota Islamic school."
Remy P Parrott III%
For Educational Purposes and Awareness
1 like Cause
BRIGITTE GABRIEL Founder of, ACT FOR AMERICA بريجيت غابرييل Birthname: Hanan Qahwaji DOB: October 21, 1964 (age 54) Birthplace: Marjayoun, Lebanon Residence Virginia Beach, Virginia, U.S.[1] Nationality Lebanese and American Other names: Nour Semaan; Brigitte Tudor Occupation Author, political activist, lecturer, journalist, conservative author, anti-Muslim activist, and founder of the group ACT! for America. Years active 1986–present Website American Congress for Truth, ACT! for America Brigitte Gabriel speaks on Refugee Crisis in Twin Falls, Idaho.jpg Brigitte Gabriel speaking in 2016 Early Life Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She claims that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family's house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food.[6] She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers. At one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine. Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She said of her experience: I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen...These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped. Education After graduating from high school, Gabriel completed a one-year business administration course at a YWCA in 1984. Career Using the pseudonym Nour Semaan, Gabriel was a news anchor for World News, an Arabic-language evening news broadcast of Middle East Television, which "was then run by Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network to spread his politically conservative, Pentecostal faith in the Middle East." The broadcasts covered Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Gabriel reported on the Israeli withdrawal from central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone (occupied South Lebanon), and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. She moved to Israel, before emigrating in 1989 to the United States. In February 2017, Gabriel said that she provided a "national security briefing" at the White House. She met with aides at the White House in March 2017. ACT! for America Main article: ACT! for America Her organization, ACT! for America, has been described by The New York Times as drawing "on three rather religious and partisan streams in American politics: evangelical Christian conservatives, hard-line defenders of Israel (both Jews and Christians) and Tea Party Republicans " and as anti-Islamic. According to The Washington Post, the organization "touted as its “first accomplishment” its 2008 campaign to shut down a Minnesota Islamic school."
Remy P Parrott III%
Muslim for Change (Reformed Muslims)
Clarion’s own Raheel Raza believes it’s crucial to criticize white supremacists like the KKK but as a society, Americans and others must also condemn Islamist supremacists. To some extent, radicalization would be lessened, if, Muslims were better integrated into the West (U.S.), but I would define ‘integration’ not only as physical, but mental and emotional integration as well. What happened usually with immigrants, is that, they may physical integrate, i.e., they dresses, speak, and move around as Westerners, but their ideology and thought process is still back home. This was actually pointed out to me, during an interview with African immigrants to the U.S., when one of the leaders said, “Their bodies are here, but their minds are still in Africa.” Western policies have not looked at this aspect, nor have they implemented programs that walked on, ideological integration. Raheel Raza Muslim Reformer CLARION Project Advisor
Remy P Parrott III%
Muslim for Change (Reformed Muslims)
Clarion’s own Raheel Raza believes it’s crucial to criticize white supremacists like the KKK but as a society, Americans and others must also condemn Islamist supremacists. To some extent, radicalization would be lessened, if, Muslims were better integrated into the West (U.S.), but I would define ‘integration’ not only as physical, but mental and emotional integration as well. What happened usually with immigrants, is that, they may physical integrate, i.e., they dresses, speak, and move around as Westerners, but their ideology and thought process is still back home. This was actually pointed out to me, during an interview with African immigrants to the U.S., when one of the leaders said, “Their bodies are here, but their minds are still in Africa.” Western policies have not looked at this aspect, nor have they implemented programs that walked on, ideological integration. Raheel Raza Muslim Reformer CLARION Project Advisor
Remy P Parrott III%
AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION
4 likes Cause
October 6, 2007 Judeo-Christian Values in America By Ronald R. Cherry Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/judeochristian_values.html America's founders believed this. George Washington said, "True religion (Christianity) offers to government its surest support." John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, argued, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President Thomas Jefferson said that: "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christianreligion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." President Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805, offered A National Prayer for Peace: "Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindred’s and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and thatthrough obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen." James Madison also encouraged public officials to declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony — as when he wrote to William Bradford (who became Attorney General under President George Washington): "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and who are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way." I am not like you who have all the time to look and dwell on something that would lead to such arguments and provocations which make both parties end-up irritated or frustrated … as I am not that kind of a person. It takes a long time for me to get mad nor be provoked as that is how I grew up and was trained. Instead of engaging myself in such debate or arguments with you, as I don’t have that time privilege, I would give you some facts of my research and notes, in the past while studying the history of my beloved country --------------------------- The Founders And Public Religious Expressions Recently, there have been objections to public religious expressions by legislative chaplains supported through State budgets. These objections to legislative chaplains are very similar to one lodged with the U. S. Congress in 1852. In that challenge, the Committees on the Judiciary in both the House and the Senate each delivered a report pertinent to this discussion. For example, in the House Report on March 27, 1854, it noted: There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1stday of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. [1] The House Judiciary Committee therefore concluded: Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty. [2] On January 19, 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered its report: The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. [3] Interestingly, a century later, the U. S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, declaring: We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. [4] Clearly, previous generations did not find difficulty with paid chaplains. In fact, even Thomas Jefferson would disagree in several areas with those who often invoke him as an authority for a secular public arena, for Jefferson himself regularly violated the bland “civil religion” standards which many secularists promote. Consider: • Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes; [5] • In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.” [6] • When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building.[7] President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol [8] and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. [9] Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. [10] • Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services; [11] • Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”; [12] • Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto; [13] • While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.” [14] Furthermore, Jefferson would especially disagree with those who believe that public prayers should be non-sectarian and omit specific references to Jesus. Jefferson believed that every individual should pray according to hisown beliefs. As Jefferson explained: [The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support. [15] (emphasis added) Critics, therefore, would be particularly troubled by President Jefferson’s words that: No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. [16] James Madison also encouraged public officials to declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony — as when he wrote to William Bradford (who became Attorney General under President George Washington): I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.[17] Additionally, throughout his Presidency, Madison issued severalproclamations for public days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving, [18] and like Jefferson, President Madison also attended church at the Capitol, thus publicly endorsing religion in official arenas. [19] So, not only did Jefferson and Madison endorse religion in the public arena, they were even willing publicly to endorse Christian prayers in the public arena rather than the bland politically-correct civic prayers desired by critics of public prayers. There are many additional framers of our government who are also qualified to speak to the issue of religious expressions in official and political arenas. For example: · [W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer. [20] Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress · We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service. [21]Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Constitution, Signer of the Declaration, Governor of Pennsylvania · Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion. [22] John Hancock, Signer ofDeclaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts · [It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. [23] I therefore recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow. [24]John Jay, Original Chief-Justice U. S. Supreme Court, An Author of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York · I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; . . . and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety [respect for God].[25] Henry Laurens, President of Congress, Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention · [A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion andeducation. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. [26]Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress · Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to politicalprosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. [27](emphasis added) George Washington, Signer of the Constitution, First U. S. President ·[W]hatsoever State among us shall continue to make piety [respect for God] and virtue the standard of public honor will enjoy the greatest inward peace, the greatest national happiness, and in every outward conflict will discover the greatest constitutional strength. [28] John Witherspoon, Signerof the Declaration of Independence There are many additional framers of our documents with similarly pertinent declarations—some more strongly worded, some less strongly worded, and some the equivalent of those above. However, just because so many framers specifically endorsed Christianity did not mean that they excluded other religious faiths, for such was not the case. In fact, evangelical Christian Benjamin Rush (a signer of the Declaration and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson, andMadison), in discussing educational policies in public schools, declared: Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius orMohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. . . . [A]ll its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well-being of civil government. [29] However, while Dr. Rush was outspoken about his personal Christian preferences, he was also gratified with the religious tolerance exercised in America. In fact, in his description of the federal parade in Philadelphia following the adoption of the Constitution, Rush happily declared: The rabbi of the Jews locked in the arms of two ministers of the Gospel was a most delightful sight. There could not have been a more happy emblem! [30] And as Constitution signer Richard Dobbs Spaight similarly explained: As to the subject of religion. . . . no power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. [31] The “every man” protections mentioned not only by Jefferson and Spaight but by so many other framers would include protections for those chaplains who wish to offer prayers in whatever manner they may choose. The historical evidence is clear: those who oppose legislative chaplaincies (paid or unpaid), or who decry sectarian public prayers, lack any broad historical basis for their arguments. Such opposition certainly cannot be justified in the name the Founding Fathers. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Founders As Christians http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=78 A Few Declarations of Our Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755 Did you know that in 1892, the Supreme Court declared America a Christian nation? Review the evidence which led to the Court's noteworthy conclusion. https://shop.wallbuilders.com/is-america-a-christian-nation-cd
Andrew Boyd
blacky b
Bryan Howard
Remy P Parrott III%
AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION
4 likes Cause
October 6, 2007 Judeo-Christian Values in America By Ronald R. Cherry Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/judeochristian_values.html America's founders believed this. George Washington said, "True religion (Christianity) offers to government its surest support." John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, argued, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President Thomas Jefferson said that: "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christianreligion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." President Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805, offered A National Prayer for Peace: "Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindred’s and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and thatthrough obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen." James Madison also encouraged public officials to declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony — as when he wrote to William Bradford (who became Attorney General under President George Washington): "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and who are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way." I am not like you who have all the time to look and dwell on something that would lead to such arguments and provocations which make both parties end-up irritated or frustrated … as I am not that kind of a person. It takes a long time for me to get mad nor be provoked as that is how I grew up and was trained. Instead of engaging myself in such debate or arguments with you, as I don’t have that time privilege, I would give you some facts of my research and notes, in the past while studying the history of my beloved country --------------------------- The Founders And Public Religious Expressions Recently, there have been objections to public religious expressions by legislative chaplains supported through State budgets. These objections to legislative chaplains are very similar to one lodged with the U. S. Congress in 1852. In that challenge, the Committees on the Judiciary in both the House and the Senate each delivered a report pertinent to this discussion. For example, in the House Report on March 27, 1854, it noted: There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1stday of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. [1] The House Judiciary Committee therefore concluded: Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty. [2] On January 19, 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered its report: The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. [3] Interestingly, a century later, the U. S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, declaring: We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. [4] Clearly, previous generations did not find difficulty with paid chaplains. In fact, even Thomas Jefferson would disagree in several areas with those who often invoke him as an authority for a secular public arena, for Jefferson himself regularly violated the bland “civil religion” standards which many secularists promote. Consider: • Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes; [5] • In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.” [6] • When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building.[7] President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol [8] and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. [9] Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. [10] • Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services; [11] • Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”; [12] • Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto; [13] • While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.” [14] Furthermore, Jefferson would especially disagree with those who believe that public prayers should be non-sectarian and omit specific references to Jesus. Jefferson believed that every individual should pray according to hisown beliefs. As Jefferson explained: [The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support. [15] (emphasis added) Critics, therefore, would be particularly troubled by President Jefferson’s words that: No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. [16] James Madison also encouraged public officials to declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony — as when he wrote to William Bradford (who became Attorney General under President George Washington): I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.[17] Additionally, throughout his Presidency, Madison issued severalproclamations for public days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving, [18] and like Jefferson, President Madison also attended church at the Capitol, thus publicly endorsing religion in official arenas. [19] So, not only did Jefferson and Madison endorse religion in the public arena, they were even willing publicly to endorse Christian prayers in the public arena rather than the bland politically-correct civic prayers desired by critics of public prayers. There are many additional framers of our government who are also qualified to speak to the issue of religious expressions in official and political arenas. For example: · [W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer. [20] Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress · We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service. [21]Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Constitution, Signer of the Declaration, Governor of Pennsylvania · Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion. [22] John Hancock, Signer ofDeclaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts · [It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. [23] I therefore recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow. [24]John Jay, Original Chief-Justice U. S. Supreme Court, An Author of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York · I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; . . . and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety [respect for God].[25] Henry Laurens, President of Congress, Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention · [A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion andeducation. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. [26]Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress · Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to politicalprosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. [27](emphasis added) George Washington, Signer of the Constitution, First U. S. President ·[W]hatsoever State among us shall continue to make piety [respect for God] and virtue the standard of public honor will enjoy the greatest inward peace, the greatest national happiness, and in every outward conflict will discover the greatest constitutional strength. [28] John Witherspoon, Signerof the Declaration of Independence There are many additional framers of our documents with similarly pertinent declarations—some more strongly worded, some less strongly worded, and some the equivalent of those above. However, just because so many framers specifically endorsed Christianity did not mean that they excluded other religious faiths, for such was not the case. In fact, evangelical Christian Benjamin Rush (a signer of the Declaration and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson, andMadison), in discussing educational policies in public schools, declared: Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius orMohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. . . . [A]ll its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well-being of civil government. [29] However, while Dr. Rush was outspoken about his personal Christian preferences, he was also gratified with the religious tolerance exercised in America. In fact, in his description of the federal parade in Philadelphia following the adoption of the Constitution, Rush happily declared: The rabbi of the Jews locked in the arms of two ministers of the Gospel was a most delightful sight. There could not have been a more happy emblem! [30] And as Constitution signer Richard Dobbs Spaight similarly explained: As to the subject of religion. . . . no power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. [31] The “every man” protections mentioned not only by Jefferson and Spaight but by so many other framers would include protections for those chaplains who wish to offer prayers in whatever manner they may choose. The historical evidence is clear: those who oppose legislative chaplaincies (paid or unpaid), or who decry sectarian public prayers, lack any broad historical basis for their arguments. Such opposition certainly cannot be justified in the name the Founding Fathers. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Founders As Christians http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=78 A Few Declarations of Our Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755 Did you know that in 1892, the Supreme Court declared America a Christian nation? Review the evidence which led to the Court's noteworthy conclusion. https://shop.wallbuilders.com/is-america-a-christian-nation-cd
Andrew Boyd
blacky b
Bryan Howard
Remy P Parrott III%