AC on Jonah Golberg of National Review

Over at American Creation blog, Jonathan Rowe wrote a post of a few ideas from Jonah Golberg. Here is a taste: “Because God says so” is the greatest appeal to authority, and the appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, effective only for those who are pre-committed to that authority."

Before I get to Rowe's response, most secular authors, who make serious mistakes about our founding, make statements of biblical doctrine that makes sense only to themselves, and these men are less authoritative or knowledgeable on this subject than the ones Greg Bahnsen used to teach and lecture  through debate.

The bible is not a fallacy at all, given its revelation proves itself accurate through: predictive prophecy, among many other factors. Along with no inherent contradictions, Christ and His inspired revelation, cannot be compared to the flawed inconsistencies, and immorality of other religions. Christianity is Christ, and Him Crucified; giving the exact date of Christ's Crucifixion in Daniel 9; the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7, and David's vivid description of the Lord's death in Psalm 22. The other religions cannot compare.

To disbelieve the bible has nothing to do with it's inspiration or validity.

Then, Rowe writes, "Even though the Declaration of Independence is a theistic document, it is not a biblical one. The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book. A generic monotheistic God, though, seems to exist as a necessary given part of the equation."

The DOI is proven to be a Christian document and Nature's God as the Divine Person, Christ Jesus, by two prayers. One before the DOI and one after. The first one is 47 days before Hancock signed the Declaration before anyone else. Both prayers mention God through the mediator Christ; meaning Nature's God cannot be anyone else but Christ:

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness." (bold mine)
--Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

The founding fathers used the word "Merits" quite often, having its etymology in old Anglican and Catholic sources. It definitely refers to the Lord's crucifixion for sin. The second prayer by Congress is obviously after the DOI and again, God is referenced through Christ and His atoning work on the Cross.

"[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress. 


Moreover, the Ratifiers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had these prayers, and others, before them while they deliberated. The idea God changed is ridiculous and promulgated by people who know little of the founding. Rowe, again, "The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book.

However, Our unalienable rights are taken from the Bible:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians..
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

--Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

It is the Christian religion that secures unalienable rights:

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”



Here is another part of the prayer, but it references the Holy Ghost, proving the founders were Trinitarians. In 1776, the Unitarians were a very small minority, did not publicize themselves and were given an undue concession. In fact, unitarians did not mention the Holy Ghost due to the conflict of their beliefs and the orthodox:


"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...[to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance...and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Journals of...Congress (1907), Vol. IX, 1777, pp 854-855, November 1, 1777.


This information also proves the Articles of Confederation was ratified under the name of Christ, written during the same Second Continental Congress. Moreover, I can prove Christ is the God of the Constitution due to the fact the Congress after the Second Continental Congress; the Congress of the Confederation, lasted from 1781 to 1789, which in the time frame the Congress wrote the Constitution:

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his mercy favor and implore his protection. When the lust of dominion or lawless ambition excites arbitrary power to invade the rights, or endeavor to wrench wrest from a people their sacred and unalienable invaluable privileges, and compels them, in defence of the same, to encounter all the horrors and calamities of a bloody and vindictive war; then is that people loudly called upon to fly unto that God for protection..that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. (bold mine)

-Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1782



Notice, the "Supreme Being" and the Redeemer, being Divine. This is the first time I know of, anyone has tied the Constitution with the Congress that drafted it. Unitarians would not have written this.

Secularist reasoning and Judge William Blackstone

This blog, along with its author, take the typical secularist view of James Wilson and the Founding Fathers with respect to Judge William Blackstone. Rowe writes:

However, Blackstone was an Tory who argued for the doctrine of absolute supremacy of the law of England. Of Parliament's power, he famously noted:

It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it's power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo.

However, James Wilson never believed what Rowe and Van Dyke--later down the thread--claim about Blackstone. The quote Rowe uses is Blackstone's summation of its practical application, and perhaps only in the context of their nation, "But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done, which is unreasonable; I know of no power that can control it" not what Blackstone believed was superior--parliament or Scripture. In fact, there are many earthly authorities that can undo what parliament has ordained. Wilson understood that Blackstone believed Scripture was theoretically supreme to parliament--which was subservient to Divine Law:

Accordingly, Sir William Blackstone, on the principles of his system, expresses himself in the following manner, remarkably guarded and circumspect, as to the extent of the parliamentary power. "If there arise out of acts of parliament, collaterally, any absurd consequences, manifestly contradictory to common reason; they are, with regard to those collateral consequences, void. I lay down the rule with these restrictions; though I know it is generally laid down more largely ― that acts of parliament contrary to reason are void. But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done, which is unreasonable; I know of no power that can control it: and the examples usually alleged in support of this sense of the rule do none of them prove, that, where the main object of a statute is unreasonable, the judges are at liberty to reject it: for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government." "No court has power to defeat the intent of the legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as to leave no doubt concerning its intention."

--Wilson, Works.

Did The Founding Fathers Execute Homosexuals?

What a paradox it would be if the framers executed homosexuals, given that today, the people want to legalize it. I have no doubt our people would persecute Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and the other framers for their views on homosexual sin. The answer is yes, the framers did execute at least one person for homosexuality. It was done in Pennsylvania, December, 1785. Guess who was President of Pennsylvania? Benjamin Franklin. Although Franklin wasn't present that day, his VP, Charles Biddell and Founding Father Peter Muhlenburg were there, and offered no pardon.

This narrative must start at the definition of terms; buggery, sodomy, and rape. All three terms were used in 18th century America. All three are defined by Webster's 1828, yet, buggery and sodomy were interchangable terms, and buggery included bestiality. Yet Sodomy and Buggery clearly referred to man on man, while rape referred to a woman.

Regarding this subject, expert John Murrin indicates Bestiality was basically non-existent due to the horror of the crime. Bestiality was synonimous to witchcraft, especially among women. Prior to the Revolution, no one was executed for bestiality in New England, mainly from lack of evidence. Bestiality is clearly from the 17th century, and not part of the founding milieu.

The Founding Fathers did execute one man for bestiality; Connecticut hanged Gideon Washburn the third friday, in January, 1800.

As to States, the Framers in Virginia, kept the Death Penalty for Buggery:

That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.

-A Collection of All Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia 1802, (Richmond:Pleasance and Price, 1803), page 179, ch. C [50], enacted Dec. 10, 1792.

The other states emphasized the Biblical laws contained in the Common Law of England:

The first reported sodomy case in Maryland also was the first known reported case in the United States. In 1810, the Court of Appeals decided Davis v. State. By a vote of 4-1, the Court upheld an indictment that charged that Davis, "not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, on &c. with forms and arms at, &c. in and upon one W C, a youth of the age of 19 years, in the peace of God, and the state of Maryland, then and there being, did make an assault, and him the said W C, then and there did beat, would, and ill-treat, with an intent that most horrid and detestable crime (among christians not to be named,) called Sodomy, with him the said W C, and against the order of nature, then and there feloniously, wickedly and devilishly, to commit and do, to the great displeasure of Almighty God, contrary to the act of assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the state." [Emphasis the Court’s].

The word Buggery was eventually forgotten, "sodomy" took its place, evidence that the issue of buggery in the 18th century, unless specifically enumerated, was homosexuality. Furthermore, besides Gideon Washburn, there were no bestiality crimes in the founding generation, thus the execution of Joseph Ross of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, had to be for homosexuality, approved by Benamin Franklin. The history of buggery sentences show the other partner was also punished; usually whipped.

The Greatest Influence to Thomas Jefferson

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson claimed Francis Bacon was the greatest man that ever lived. It is ironic TJ put Bacon at the top of a circled Trinity with Locke and Newton beneath him, in view of the fact TJ was a unitarian and Bacon a Trinitarian. Bacon was a devout Anglican, who, it would appear, believed in all the fundamentals of Christianity. His rejection of Aristotle's philosophy for empiricism, and Locke's blank slate theory, for the more correct Original Sin doctrine, by man's erroneous understanding of initial information is refreshing, given Bacon had such an effect on the primary draughtsman of the Declaration of Independence.

The most influential man the world has ever known according to the rationalist Thomas Jefferson, was an Orthodox Christian. How poetic.

Dennis Prager, God, Liberals and Liberty

Dennis Prager's recent post about Liberty and God differentiates rights from Christianity and Islam. It is vitally important to understand the identity of the God that gave us our rights. The Declaration of Independence tells us who the God of our liberty and rights is; His name is "The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God." This appellation is attributed to no other God in history than the God of the Bible. In fact, the Founding Fathers understood this name as passed down from the Scriptures to Protestant Reformers: John Calvin, and Martin Luther, to English and Catholic Elites: John Locke, Richard Hooker, William Blackstone, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.

What is Separation of Church and State Anyway?

Many, if not all Americans continue to believe and promote the false notion of Separation of Church and State. I understand this is taught at every level in the schools, the evidence of, the very elites of government and power believe. The separation dogma is infested on the blogosphere, including this recent post by judecowell, at his blog: Jude's Threshold. I have to mention this particular post since the blogger makes an assertion but provides no evidence for its support. Here is the jist of the post:

"Otherwise religious persecution wouldn’t have been long in coming which would have negated our basic tenet of ’separation of church and state’ which the Founding Fathers embedded within our freedom documents…not the exact words, mind you, but their wishes were made clear."

With that logic, I could say Hinduism is not embedded within our freedom documents, but their wishes were clear. Where is the talk of this separation doctrine at the Constitutional Convention, in the various State Ratifying Conventions, or in any of the ratifiers' writings?

Another blog of note is Faith in Public Life. They, like most everyone else, assume separation of church and state, but provide no support for it. This author is named Kristin. She wrote a post the other day as though separation of church and state is common knowledge. The recent stimulus by our government was the pretext to refer to the separation dogma:

"This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget)."

Not only does Kristin fail to provide any support for separation of church and state, the stimulus does discriminate against people of faith. Proponents of the Stimulus Bill could be trying to save money, but ultimately, it still is discrimination by exempting any monies for rennovating buildings that house religious worship. Christians are no doubt the target. On the same page as Kristin's article, former Vice President Al Gore supports separation of church and state in the schools. Contrary to Al Gore, the government, and media, the Founding Fathers mandated teaching the Bible in all schools, as well as spent tax dollars to promote Christianity to the Indians, et al. It is only recently that uninformed politicians have perverted the will of the Founding Fathers.

Inspired, at Journey of Cross and Quill posts the Father of American Medicine's: Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical by Benjamin Rush, a notable Founding Father. Will one day the American people be educated on the real definition of Separation of Church and State?

Political Liberty IS in the Bible:

Jon Rowe wrote a piece on his interpretation of Romans 13, to which Jim Bakka responded on Positive Liberty. Mr. Bakka clearly follows the interpretation ascribed to John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others. I do not have a problem with different interpretations of an unessential to the faith, like Romans 13; my issue is with some of the men who claim to be authorities, who lack basic common sense, such as: Dr. Greg Frazer, who teaches political science at The Masters College, and Dr. Robert Kraynak of Colgate. In fact, both, write ideas supposedly found in the Bible, that aren't there, not even implied. Here, is an example:

"First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6564473&postID=7023634957184753884&isPopup=true

Maybe those men are reading a different bible. Does Kraynak, Frazer, or even Rowe, whose blog it appears, believe God forced Abraham's seed into servitude? There is not a single doubt as to a covenant/compact God made with Abraham and his descendents; undemocratic? The covenant is throughout the Torah:

Deuteronomy 4:31(For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deuteronomy 5:2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb."

The Compact between God and Israel in the Book of Joshua:

Joshua 24:22 "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses."

As a matter of fact, the covenant started with Abraham as early as Genesis 15;18:
"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

Here is the basis of the covenant with Abraham agreeing to it by circumcision:

Genesis 17:13:
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:23:
And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

The rest of Frazer's post in Rowe's blog is equally incorrect, and not worth a rebuttal. Jon Rowe also shows his lack of biblical knowledge, and history, as he writes:

"Rather, the Biblical record in no uncertain terms shows that God unilaterally burdened His people with the law of Moses without their consent or approval. And the notion that people must "consent" to the laws which will rule them is entirely a Whig or 18th Century republican ideal, not a biblical idea." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/04/whoring-christian-religion-for-politics.html

These statements are all too common with secular intellectuals; in the Reformation writings, "Consent" is on every page; Republicanism(Biblical Law enforced by representatives of the people)starts in Exodus 18, and is thoroughly, and completely elucidated in "Vindici"(A Defense Against Tyranny) and Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex(Law is King).

John Quincy Adams identified it (Vindici) one of the most influential writings on the eve of our war for independence, and be assured, all the founding fathers, including First Chief Justice John Jay, understood it was the correct interpretation. Here, Adams sums up that our Constitution(Law) is based on Christianity:

"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."

-- John Quincy Adams, (Thornton's accurate summary of Adams' quote) An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

Adams' quote is easy to affirm from Common Law in general. Reformers and Pre-Reformers: John Rutherford, Thomas Aquinas, Bullinger(who was before Calvin), Beza(who advocated non-violent resistence), Martin Bucer, John Knox, his pastor Christopher Goodman, George Buchanan, Francois Hotman, John Ponet, Althusius, etc. all agreed only good government was ordained by God in Romans 13. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchton were wrong.

The Bible, and subsequently (A Defense Against Tyranny), is the work the Founding Fathers relied on for justified rebellion against unlawful government, "Vindici" as it was known, said the people collectively, are above the King, yet, individually, each man is under the King in a compact between the King, God, and the people(church), whereby, if the King violated God's Law, he forfeited his Kingdom. That God is to be obeyed over man is all over the document, in fact, only good government is to be obeyed; common sense dictates if man was never to resist an evil king, Israel would have been under the same principle, but it was not; countless times, God destroyed, or had other rulers destroy evil Israelite rulers, such as: Saul, Manasseh, Ahab, Jehoram, Jeroboam, etc.

That the people choose the King, implies consent of the governed; the people's superiority is in Proverbs 14:28:

"In the multitude of people is the king's honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince."

The want of people is obviously their consent, since the people have the power to remove a King.

Steven M. Dworetz's summary of Romans 13 quotes Calvin and Luther for authority; why quote one man whose theories are easily refuted, and another, who was a racist, advocating burning Jew's houses, searing their tongues with hot irons? Maybe, Mr. Dworetz had heard of the alternate viewpoint, that of the founding fathers, and Reformation. Just because Calvin, Luther, and some early church fathers had a certain interpretation, does not mean they were correct. It is debatable whether Calvin was a Christian at all; he believed his infant baptism secured his salvation. Here is what Dworetz says:

"Basing a revolutionary teaching on the scriptural authority of chapter 13 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities."
-- Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution, p. 155, quoted in Frazer, The Political Theology of the American Founding, p. 358.

Claiming "all" Christian reformers believed his interpretation is a flat-out falsehood. Has Dworetz heard of "Vindici" (A Defense Against Tyranny) by Hubert Lanquet and Philippe du Plessis-Mornay, published in 1579?

The New Testament relates the same principle as the Old Covenant, explains the Vindici:

"Now...the form...the church and the Jewish kingdom be changed...the same things may be said of Christian kings, the gospel having succeeded the law, and Christian princes being in the place of those Jewry...the same covenant...same conditions...same punishments...the same God Almighty."

And again, the Vindici:

"Kings are ordained by God, and established by the people to procure and provide for the good...in the order of Justice, and in managing of armies for the repelling their enemies."

In Romans 13, we also see the concept "verbal for verbal, and force with force" and "render to all their dues" and "whatever a man sows, he also reaps." Examples in Israel would be Jehoida defending Israel against Athaliah, and Deborah and Gideon defending Israel in like kind.

Christian Kings, as well as ancient Israel needed approval from the people, even kings ascending the throne by heredity needed approval by representatives of the people such as: counts, barons, dukes, and earls. King Louis was choosen instead of the rightful Robert, Earl of Evereux(Annales Gillii). Unitarian Patriot, Jonathan Mayhew in 1750, claimed:

"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers."

It is a fact of history, the Founding Fathers attributed our theory of government and liberty from the Reformation, not the enlightenment:

A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government. (Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4). Published in Strassbourg in 1556, it is one of the first works out of the Reformation to advocate active resistance to tyrannical magistrates, with the exception of the Magdeburg Bekkentis (the Magdeburg Confession)."

John Locke learned some of his theories from Samuel Rutherford, who was a colleague of Locke's parents. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) In addition to being the decree of Parliament as the standard for Christian doctrine in the British Kingdom, it was adopted as the official statement of belief for the colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Although slightly altered and called by different names, it was the creed of Congregationalist, Baptist, and Presbyterian Churches throughout the English speaking world. Assent to the Westminster Confession was officially required at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Princeton scholar, Benjamin Warfield wrote: "It was impossible for any body of Christians in the [English] Kingdoms to avoid attending to it." [Link goes to chap.23, "On the Civil Magistrate."]

This is an interesting quote for anyone who claims James Madison was heterodox as he helped form the nation. Warfield makes perfect sense, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, adhered to that confession, another evidence of Madison not rejecting orthodoxy until well in the 19th century.

Protestant Reformer George Buchanan started the limited government theory stating, ""it was much safer to trust liberties to laws than to kings . . . confine them to narrow bounds, and thrust them, as it were, into cells of law . . . circumscribe [them] within a close prison." Buchanan believed a Constitution was superior to any ruler: "Kings being accordingly left, in other respects free, found their power confined to prescribed limits only by the necessity of squaring their words and actions by directions of law."

There is no doubt whatsoever, political liberty is in the bible, brought out with the Protestant Reformation, and perfected by the American experiment; called limited governmental power under Biblical Law, and Jesus Christ. Our Tenth Amendment has it's roots in Johannes Althusius's 1603 Politica:

"Besides, whatever power the people did not have it could not transfer to its administrators. Therefore, whatever power and right the administrators did not receive from the people, they do not have, they cannot exercise over the people, nor ought they to be able to do so."

His main point was what arose out of the Reformation was Republicanism; rule by law: Rulers are to be objectively subordinate to "God, the law of nature and of nations, and the ephors."

Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, further emphasized "Vindici" on Romans 13. Rutherford asserted that the parliament had greater power than the king, a notion disputed at the time. The king did not have unlimited power. To the contrary, any tyranny which opposed justice, peace, and the good of the people, was "unreasonable and forbidden by the law of God and the civil law . . . [it] cannot be lawful power, and cannot constitute a lawful judge . . . How can the judge be the minister of God for good to the people (Rom. 13:4) if he has such a power as a king, given him of God, to destroy and waste the people?" Moreover, Rutherford argued: "God, in making a king to preserve his people, should give liberty without all political restraint, for one man to destroy many is contrary to God's end in the fifth commandment, if one has absolute power to destroy souls and bodies of many thousands."
http://www.phillysoc.org/reformat.htm

Like I've said before, on my blog, the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers' formation of our country had absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment philosophy, which excluded God from the equation, in fact, the fateous, scholastic elites continue to purport these lies. Separation of Powers(Isa 33:22), property rights(Ex 22), Life(Deut 30:19, Hos 9:13-14), Liberty(Eccl 3:13), Happiness(Eccl 3:13),4th Amendment(Deut 24:10), The Law of Nations(Sovereignty, Deut 19:14), Jury System(Deut 17:6), inalienable rights, freedom of conscience(Entire New Testament), political rights(Torah), etc. all come out of the Bible, and Reformation, espoused by men like: The Prophets, David, Solomon, Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John Wycliffe(Univ of Oxford), Zwingli, Luther(Univ of Wittenberg), Hus(Univ of Prague), Rutherford, Knox, Lanquet, Mornay, Beza, Aquinas, Hooker(who espoused unalienable rights), Pufendorf, Grotius, and many others.

Eighteenth Century Americans were regulated by the Bible, sure there were a few infidels such as: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams, but, since the law is supreme, what is important, is the beliefs of the ratifiers(people) of law, rather than the subjective views of three people; this is something the scholastic elites cannot admit or allow, thereby, holding to their agenda.

There are far many more orthodox than heterodox preachers who affirmed the correct, biblical, reformation, view of Romans 13, as I've described above; some of these include: Samuel Davies(Distinguished successor to Jonathan Edwards at Princeton), John Witherspoon, Jacob Duche, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, George Whitefield, Elhanan Winchester, Ezra Stiles, Samuel Langdon(President of Harvard 1774-1780), Elizur Goodrich, Nathaniel Emmons, Samuel Wales, William Smith, and many others. The unitarian preachers comprised a fraction of the pro-rebellion preachers.

Here, the use of philosophical language to evidence a lack of orthodoxy is debunked, note, this is how preacher's of the 18th century spoke:

“Religion cannot subsist without right notions of God and divine things; and entire ignorance or mistakes in its fundamental articles must be destructive of its nature; and therefore a divine revelation must be a collection of rays of light, a system of divine knowledge; and such we find the Christian revelation to be, as contained in the sacred writings.”
Samuel Davies
[Quote from his sermon “The Divine Authority ... of the Christian Religion.”]

Davies(The Apostle of Virginia) left his mark as scholar and patriot on his students, particularly the eleven members of the Class of 1760 whom he taught as seniors. ``Whatever be your Place,'' he told them in his baccalaureate address, ``imbibe and cherish a public spirit. Serve your generation.'' This they did. Among the eleven were a member of the Continental Congress, chaplains in the Continental Army, judges in Maine and Pennsylvania, the founder of a college in North Carolina, a member of the United States House of Representatives, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/davies_samuel.html
Davies was a primary founder of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia and North Carolina, the advocate and defender of the South's civil rights and religious liberties.

Maybe I should speak in philosophical language; let the secularists call me an infidel! This is, in fact, how Christians used to speak about God. The South's fervor for independence in the coming conflict with Britain was established with Davies' ministry; the presbyterian church, not the unitarian church, was the pulpit of independence. As Patrick Henry, a congregant in one of the churches established by Davies, later said, “Were it not for him, America freedom would have been still-born. In the Gospel he preached, the energy he displayed, and the courage he lived day by day, he modeled the true American temper.” http://www.kingsmeadow.com/2006/09/samuel-davies.html

Henry's oratory, which Jefferson and Madison could not match, employed Davies' speaking ability; the variety of (pitches) "sounds" in his sermon delivery, as well as alternating back and forth from religious to philosophical(classical) terminology. Davies' second wife, Jane Holt, was the daughter of a Williamsburg mayor and printer, and provided Davies with direct access to the Virginia Gazette, which he used as a platform for defending his own and other dissenting clergy's rights to preach. At the time of his death, in 1761, Davies' sermons were well known and influential as models for other clergy; by the time of the Revolution, they were among the most widely circulating collections of sermons in the colonies, particularly in the Middle Colonies, Virginia, and North Carolina...The rhetorical education of Scottish Presbyterians carried a legacy of beliefs about human reason, human rights, congregational polity, and the educability of moral sensibility through the written and the spoken word. Like I said earlier, this is reformation doctrine, not enlightenment. http://www.historicpolegreen.org/swearingenlecture.html

Incidently, no one helped educate the blacks more than Davies, who aggravated most southerners believing blacks were equal with whites. I agree with Dr. Swearingin about Davie's impact(and Presbyterianism) on Patrick Henry, and of the growing fervor of independence in the Southern Colonies in general, but her quoting the Scottish Englightenment as it's foundation is incorrect; consent, human rights, reason, religious tolerance, inalienable rights, etc are not products of the enlightenment, they are products of the Bible, illuminated to the world by men of the Reformation. The enlightenment brought about humanism, rationalism, and reason as the ultimate authority, neglecting the supernatural and biblical revelation. Hutcheson, Paine, Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau, Leibniz, and Kant, all neglected the Bible as the Supreme Authority.

Jon Rowe, along with most of the academic elites, miss the boat; here, Rowe believes an Orthodox Christian's use of philosophical language is from the enlightenment, but as this blog shows, we know for a fact, these terms were used by preachers at that time and by Christians three hundred-fifty years before, perfected in political rhetoric during the Reformation (1500-1678):

"John Witherspoon was one of those evangelicals who contributed to the spread of secularism in American life. His Lectures on Moral Philosophy, what he primarily taught his Princeton students like James Madison, did not teach Christian or Calvinist principles, but rather Scottish Enlightenment principles." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/04/christian-blog-on-search-for-christian.html

This blog has already proven John Witherspoon did not deny one word of the bible in favor of rationalism. http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-witherspoon-james-madison-and.html

Was George Washington a Christian?

The more I investigate and read the account of witnesses claiming George Washington was a Christian, the more my own view is questioned. By a careful examination of Washington's words, and the context of those words, it is evident his philosophical language, which all Christians used in reference to God, no doubt, referred to Jesus Christ. Granted, this is not an admission of faith, but, neither does it exempt the label of Christian.

Using proper English Comprehension, the key to Washington's letter to the Delaware Chiefs is not the Indians' arts and ways of life, but our ways of life, showing Jesus Christ's Religion is to be above everything else in our culture; again, Washington includes himself in "our" arts and ways of life:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS
Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=18502434&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+15:+SPEECH+TO+THE+DELAWARE+CHIEFS&query=jesus+christ&id=gw150049

So George Washington never referred to God in Christian terms? Quite the contrary; he mentioned Jesus Christ to the Delaware Chiefs, and here, in 1789:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions."
Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3rd, 1789

Who pardons transgressions and is The Lord? Jesus Christ is the only answer. This also shows his prayers and supplications were to Jesus, not to a deist, or theist god.

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
Washington's Farewell to the Army, June 8th, 1783
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html

Without a doubt, George Washington is referring to Jesus Christ, as these Characteristicks refer only to Him. He declares, including himself, our country's religion is Christianity, whose imitation every nation should imitate.

And again, here, Washington says Revelation, which is God's will for mankind, is referring to the Bible, supported by Webster's definition of the word. Notice, God's revelation is superior to all human knowledge, including man's reason, which can only be useful and relevant if it is written down:

"[t]he Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society."

There is evidence, among other reports, Washington took communion, here is one testimony in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania:

The Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College. Mr. Snowden was born in Philadelphia January 17, 1770 and died November 12, 1851. His writings cover a period from youth to 1846. In his records may be found these observations, in Mr. Snowden's own handwriting:

Mr. Snowden, as if to emphasize the piety of Washington sets forth in his records that he often saw Washington, that he accompanied seventy other clergymen to visit him on the anniversary of his birth February 22, 1792. Then Mr. Snowden adds:

"When the army lay at Morristown, the Rev. Dr. Jones, administered the sacrament of ye Lord's supper. Washington came forward at ye head of all his officers and took his seat at ye 1st table, & took of ye bread and wine, the Symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood, to do this in remembrance of ye L J C & thus professed himself a Christian & a disciple of the blessed Jesus."
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html

Did Washington fake communion, and this testimony false? Is the Valley Forge Prayer an accurate account? I know there are equally other testimonies rejecting Washington's faith, but, without his words rejecting Christianity, it's difficult to label him a theist. David Barton may be on safe ground claiming Washington a Christian. The claims of Washington's Grand daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis, John Marshall, Abiel Holmes, or Jared Sparks may only refer to his Christian character, not his faith in Christian Orthodoxy, which is mandatory for salvation; Marshall was a unitarian until the latter part of his life.

If Snowden's testimony is true, I have no problem with people claiming Washington a Christian, for me, I am still undecided.

The Christian Foundation of Republican Government

For decades now, secular revisionists continue to deny the United States was founded a Christian nation; rejecting the Common Law foundation of Republican Government; Common Law, found in the Bible, is no longer a mystery; brought to light to refute the disingenuous agenda of the American secularist order. Common knowledge, and research of the Founding Fathers' writings shows the Republican Government of the United States was based on the political system of England. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, guarantees the United States shall guarantee every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.

The foundation of Republican Government is Law, Common Law. The basis of the Constitution's Republican Government, and Common Law, is without a doubt, The Ten Commandments from Yahweh, the God of Israel. It is an indisputable fact the Founding Fathers believed this(emphasis added). God ordained Republican Government three-thousand five-hundred years ago, albeit not formed as a theocracy, the Founding Fathers started a Constitutional Republic, based on representatives ruling for the people. It is irrelevant the differences in government, and manner the representatives came about to rule, Biblical Law is the standard, and in both cases the people agreed to the choosen Representatives:

Deuteronomy 1 (King James Version)
14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.

Like I said, whether the representatives were selected or elected is irrelevant, this is only a diversion to reject the Biblical foundation. Secularists distort the issue by claiming Republican Government is where citizens elect representatives to actually govern, and authority is derived from the citizens or their elected representatives.This is an incorrect assertion; no where did the Christian Philosophers(Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, etc.) believe electing representatives was the foundation of Republicanism. Law(Biblical Law) is the foundation of Republicanism; how representatives are elected is not mandatory. The only mandatory aspect of Republicanism is the acceptance of the people to form a government that has representatives, which is true of ancient Israel, and the United States.

From the Holy Bible, we see the conscience(reason) of man, and The Ten Commandments(Divine Law), is the foundation of Law in a Republican Government; this being clearly revealed to the world in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Thomas Aquinas did not need to bypass the New Testament, and employ Aristotle's theories into the church, that was an error; the sacred oracles in man(conscience) were designed in man by the true God, Jesus Christ, not the "thought thinking self" of Aristotle.

The Founding Fathers rejected every other Republican Government, except that of the English, as James Madison explains:

"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html

The moral laws of the states prove their law was Biblical Law, and no other.

England is the main example of Republican Government to the Founding Fathers; the celebrated Montesquieu, their main authority on the matter. How did the English acquire Republican Government for their nation? Montesquieu explains:

"In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans, we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed the idea of their political government."
Book XI. Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution 6. Of the Constitution ofEngland.

However, in my opinion, Sir William Blackstone provides a better explanation:

"there never was any formal exchange of one system of laws for another: though doubtless by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they must have insensibly introduced and incorporated many of their own customs with those that were before established; thereby in all probability improving the texture and wisdom of the whole, by the accumulated wisdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, saith lord Bacon, are mixed as our language: and, as our language is so much the richer, the laws are the more complete.

And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemesnors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may at least be collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the laws of king Edward the elder, the son of Alfred."

That the Divine Law is The Ten Commandments is clear:

"Divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures" (emphasis added). Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm

Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law...And hence it is that our lawyers are with justice so copious in their encomiums on the reason of the common law, that they tell us, that the law is the perfection of reason, that it always intends to conform thereto, and that what is not reason is not law. Blackstone, SECTION THE THIRD. OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1103.htm

So the immigrants from Europe brought with them their customs and religion; being primarily Christianity with Common Law. The Common Law is no doubt the Divine Law, and the Gospel as Blackstone has said. Christianity had spread into England as early as the first century; Christianity gaining converts throughout England by the beginning of the fourth century. Christianity was known in pagan saxon territory, as well as the rest of England:

"The discovery of the Darenth Bowl (a glass communion chalice c.450 A.D.) discovered by the Dartford District Archaeological Group in a Saxon grave in the grounds of the old Darenth Park Hospital has raised all sorts of questions about the possible survival of Christian belief in and around Dartford."
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_history/religion_s.shtml

The Common Law of the Bible was instituted by early Christians, and Christian Kings: Ethelbert, in the sixth century, and in the ninth century under Christian King Alfred the Great, the only English King called the Great. Granted, the Bible was not translated into the common language of the people, but they understood the Gospel; their Common Law is evidence of this fact. So, Christianity is the foundation of Common Law; Republican Government founded on the Law and the Gospel.

The Founding Fathers were correct in claiming Common Law is founded on Christianity; if not for the sinfulness of man, what was the reason for the separation of powers in a Republican Government? There is no other reason for the separation of powers other than sin, and wickedness of man; the Founding Fathers knowing this full well.

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
James Madison, Federalist #51.

"Republican government loses half of its value where the moral and social duties are...negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is a work of far more importance to the charachter and happiness of our citizens, than any other improvements in our system of education. [T]he moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, and ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." History, p. 339. Noah Webster

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the geniune source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.

Webster understood where true Liberty and Free Government lies:

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles...and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." History, p. 300,

John Adams understood our Republican Government is based on Law, Common Law of the Bible:

"No good government but what is republican...the very definition of a republic is'an empire of laws, and not of men.'' "Thoughts on Government" January, 1776

Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu was the main influence on the Founding Fathers regarding Republican Government, his Spirit of Laws published in 1752, was studied intensely by the framers; proclaiming Christianity the foundation of Republican Law, agreeing that law and religion are twin sisters, to form the greatest government of mankind:

"The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. II, pp. 125-126

Book XXIV.Of Laws in relation to Religion Considered in Itself,and in its Doctrines1. Of Religion in General. 3. "That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty."

"Society notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, p. 18, ad passim

Secularists try to claim Montesquieu did not use biblical examples for Republican Government; diverting the important point of Law as its foundation; the author giving examples of pagan government is not claiming they are the originators of it. To the Founding Fathers, religion and government are to work together, worthy of the peoples support, as Thomas Jefferson explains:

"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." Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.

Critics believe this is a spurious quote because of the early age of the Reverend, but many framers had diaries and writings when they were young; the quote also has confirmation from another witness; the quote was not disputed when it was published, and is harmonious with the views of other framers:

"[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." Elias Boudinot, Acting President of the United States, Chairman of the House Committee which Drafted the Bill of Rights. Member of the Continental Congress (1778-79, 1781-84). The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.

"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." John Hancock, member of the Continental Congress (1774-78) where he was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and Acting President of the United States (1774-77); Senior Major-General of Massachusetts Militia (1778); delegate to the State constitutional convention (1779); and he was Governor of Massachusetts (1780-85, 1787-93). Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.

"[A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. 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." Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress. Charles C. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1891), pp. 6-7.

The laws spoken of, are the Law and the Gospel found in the Bible; these laws are the liberty spoken of in the Bible, it is pure liberty, as the framers prohibited man from abrogating them. Most of the states laws on morality are straight from the bible, for instance laws against blasphemy, and profanity come from the bible, "...continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.

Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.

Notice how Christian Judge Swift used philosophical language in his assessment.

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law: The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:

The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

This point also indicates James Wilson helped form the laws prohibiting, and penalizing homosexuality. Here Wilson differentiates rape with consensual homosexuality:

A rape is an irreparable and a most atrocious aggression on the right of personal safety. Besides the thousand excruciating, but nameless circumstances by which it is aggravated, some may be mentioned with propriety. It is a crime committed not only against the citizen, but against the woman; not only against the common rights of society, but against the peculiar rights of the sex: it is committed by one from whom, on every virtuous and manly principle, her sex is entitled to inviolable protection, and her honour to the most sacred regard. This crime is one of the selected few, which, by the laws of the Saxons, were punished with death. The same punishment it still undergoes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On this subject, for an obvious reason, particular observations will not be expected from a lecture in the hall: they are fit for the book and the closet only: for even the book and the closest they are fit, only because they are necessary.

The crime not to be named, I pass in a total silence.

"OF CRIMES AGAINST THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO PERSONAL SAFETY." http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson3.htm

It seems Wilson helped write the Pennsylvania laws on morality.

Regarding the separation of powers doctrine, it was spoken about in the Bible over twenty-five hundred years ago:

Isaiah 33:22 (King James Version)For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.

A Constitutional Republic has the same foundation as a Theocracy; Law. A Theocracy and Republic differ in that God's law is supreme in a Theocracy; the people, not God, are sovereign in a Republic; our framers understanding consent of the governed is consistent with the Law of Nature's free will in man. If a people can keep a Republic, the Divine Law is superior in all cases enumerated. Sir William Blackstone explains:

To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.

Because the Constitution is exempt in matters of religion, religion is left to the states; the framers then, formed Christian states. So, the Britons, including saxons, were converted to Christianity by the Apostles(Simon the Zealot in the first century), and missionaries, these Britons employed Common Law(Ten Commandments) of the Bible into their government, hence, the Founding Fathers of the United States used the same Republicanism, but varied. Despite the secularist claim, the United States was founded a nation of Christian states.

Vote is in for Greatest Founding Father...not Alexander Hamilton

The vote is over for considering who the greatest founding father is; Thomas Jefferson and George Washington each received seven votes, Madison, Hamilton, and Samuel Adams each had one vote. Maybe Jefferson's reputation helped him, but Washington lead the vote count up until the end. Washington was an upright man, with the integrity, and character Jefferson lacked. Despite Jefferson having nothing to do with the formation or ratification of the Constitution, his popularity continues to grow.

I agree with Hercules Mulligan that Washington had the universal confidence and respect from the other framers to be first President of the early Republic; from President James Monroe's testimony, without Washington's leadership, the Constitutional Convention would have likely failed.

I have questions regarding Washington's Christianity; unlike Alexander Hamilton, whose writings tell us he believed the Christian Religion Divine, amidst his personal failures. In comparing Washington's simple genius with the brilliance of Alexander Hamilton, my allegiance is with the latter.

From his birth in the West Indies, he overcame adversity Washington, or any other framer never experienced. He also had to deal with prejudice from some framers who were born with silver spoons in their mouths, some launching assaults at his birth out of wedlock.

He was, as John Adams later claimed, "the bastard brat of a Scottish peddler." Hamilton, at the age of 13, had to prevail when his mother, who had pieced together a livelihood as a retailer, died. He prevailed again when his guardian, a distant relative named Peter Lytton, committed suicide the following year.

At 19, in the United States, Hamilton put a brigade together on his own, getting his troops and supplies himself, while being appointed a captain of the New York Artillery. Hamilton and his men fought bravely in several early battles, including the unsuccessful attempt to hold Manhattan from the British. Hamilton and his unit covered Washington's retreat across New Jersey. In the sharpest exchanges, Hamilton's artillery kept the British at bay while the bulk of the American forces crossed first the Raritan River and later the Delaware. Hamilton also took part in the successful, and famous, counterattacks at Trenton and Princeton in the winter of 1776–77.

Hamilton was not only a military genius, he was an administrative, legal, economic, and political genius as well. Washington recognized his talent, giving ever-increasing responsibility to the young officer, now a lieutenant colonel. During the next few years of fighting, when desertion was all too common, Hamilton stayed loyally by his commander's side. He was there for the frozen winters at Valley Forge and Morristown; the military disasters like the abandonment of New York City in 1776 and the subsequent retreat across New Jersey; the real treacheries of Benedict Arnold, and the perceived treacheries of an impotent Continental Congress; and the failed opportunities like Monmouth, when he was at Washington's side when the Virginia gentleman lambasted General Charles Lee in mid-battle for gross misconduct. And Hamilton was with Washington during the good times, the infrequent victories, and the secret march to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html

Hamilton was also the first man over the wall at Yorktown, defeating the British, showing his undaunted bravery. His genius started during the Revolutionary War, when he first thought of the National Bank. Central to Hamilton's early plans were several key provisions of what would later be the hallmarks of his financial program: foreign loans, partial government ownership of a national bank, and use of that bank to provide the national government with short-term loans.

Hamilton's thought was often far in advance of that of most of his contemporaries. This is not to say that he could see the future but rather that he took positions that remained unpopular or misunderstood until well into the nineteenth century. Two episodes in 1784 demonstrate his prescience. First, Hamilton established a private commercial bank. The innovation came not so much from the bank itself, which closely followed the procedures established by its predecessor, the Bank of North America. Rather, the innovation came from the way in which the bank, the very same Bank of New York that still graces Wall Street, found legal life. The New York legislature was against his idea, so he by-passed them and started it himself; the most essential advantages of his idea: joint-stock form, negotiable shares, status as a legal entity, and limited liability. So the Bank of New York formed and began business anyway, under private "articles of association" instead of a special legislative act. Hamilton used the same technique again with the Merchants' Bank in the early nineteenth century.

Hamilton presented several monumental state papers that, when combined with the entrepreneurial talents and self-interested desires of thousands of Americans, forged a national financial system: The Report on Public Credit (January 9, 1790), The Report on the Bank (December 13, 1790), The Establishment of a Mint (January 28, 1791), and The Report on Manufactures (December 5, 1791). Taken together, Hamilton's reports were nothing short of a strategic outline for the establishment of a thriving economy rooted solidly in the bedrock of sound fiscal management, a stable monetary system, extensive short-term commercial credit, and long-term development capital. On the grandest scale, the secretary's policies helped to solidify the new government by creating incentives for wealthy individuals to invest in it, directly through ownership of its bonds and indirectly through ownership of shares in the Bank of the United States. He surmised, correctly as it turned out, that the financial system would be "the powerful cement of our Union."

His ideas on the National Bank Jefferson and Madison despised, making Virginia pay the debts of other states, as well as a threat to Republican Government. Hamilton had no loyalty to any state, but to the Constitution. Hamilton saw paying the debt a blessing rather than a burden, in addition to aligning the interests of the wealthy with those of the government, his funding plan would increase the nation's credit overseas, making it cheaper and easier for both the government and private enterprises to obtain foreign financing. Finally, funding would create a form of liquid capital that would help the economy to allocate resources more efficiently.

Madison's solution on paying the debt was insufficient, and discriminatory; Madison wanted to group the original debt holders at the expense of current debt holders; Hamilton eventually crushed the discrimination argument with his usual barrage of logic and first principles. The debt instruments were simply a species of property, the value of which fluctuated with the government's fortunes and interest rates. They were, moreover, fully negotiable instruments. In other words, exchanging them was perfectly legal. The original holders had not been coerced into selling and had received a valuable consideration for the ownership of the obligations. Only the current owners of the bonds, Hamilton concluded, could be compensated. For those who could not follow his reasoning, Hamilton offered the Continental Congressional resolution of April 26, 1783, authored ironically enough by Madison, that solemnly pledged that there would be no discrimination against those who obtained government debt in the secondary market.

Thinking through the matter of the Bank being owned and operated by the government, or being privitized, in Hamilton's view, independent managers would prevent abuse by the government and provide a necessary check against its possible perfidy, much like judicial review did for courts and legislatures. The private status of the Bank would ensure that the government could never use it as a tool of oppression. As Hamilton noted, governments were never "blessed with a constant succession of upright and wise Administrators." But the Bank, as a private institution, would have a "magnetic sense" of its "own interest ... the prosperity of the institution" and thereby prevent the government from succumbing to "the temptations of momentary exigencies."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html

Today's corruption, and greed of man is a totally different animal compared to 18th century America. It seems the longer the nation exists, the more wicked it becomes, throwing off the Biblical fundamentals the Founding Fathers grew up with. Of Hamilton,
Chancellor James Kent called him, a lawyer that had no superior. (emphasis added)

Politically, if he would have been more sympathetic, and understanding, the Federalists would not have lost the Presidency of 1800. If he could have united the Federalists, rather than splitting them up, Adams would have beaten Jefferson in 1800; even with Hamilton's death, the Federalists would still have been the most powerful party. But Hamilton had enemies, and helped divide the party.

In the end, Hamilton fell mortally wounded on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, the financial system was thriving. Joint-stock banks were rapidly multiplying, as were other types of joint-stock companies, not all of which, thanks to Hamilton's insight, needed formal incorporation to begin operations. The credit of the U.S. was among the best in the world; U.S. bonds and stock in the Bank of the United States regularly traded in London as well as in the active securities markets of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston. The nation's credit was so good that it easily borrowed to purchase Louisiana and to fight wars. The first Bank helped to keep the macroeconomy on an even keel by checking the note issue of state banks. The entire nation had a single unit of account, the U.S. dollar, that was firmly defined in terms of gold and silver. Fire and marine insurance was almost fully formed; life insurance lay just over the horizon, as did trust companies, savings banks, and building-and-loans. Great leaps in manufacturing—ultimately funded by banks and capital markets—began just a few years after Hamilton's death. Most importantly, economic growth, increases in real per capita output, was picking up steam, soon literally as well as figuratively.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html

Alexander Hamilton was the creator of the U.S. financial system, the engine of America's remarkable nineteenth-century economic and political transformations. Wall Street, and our modern banking system, was designed by him. His legacy will always be with us. I consider him one of the great geniuses the United States has produced.

"I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. He divined Europe." --Charles Maurice de Talleyrand

Is President George Bush a Born Again Christian?

Being Born Again is not a recent phenomenon, Jesus used the words signaling the New Birth:
John 3 (King James Version)
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So we understand from Jesus that being Born Again, is to accept Jesus as Our Savior and Lord, so the Spirit of God can indwell our bodies to help us live the Christian life.

1. The first proof the Spirit of God does not indwell President George Bush is his clear violation of Joel 3:2 (King James Version)
"I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."

Granted, this verse is talking about future judgment of nations that persecuted Israel. Notice God claims the land belongs to Him, not a people, or a government. God makes this clear again in the Torah:

Leviticus 25:23 (King James Version)
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."

It is irelevant if Bush claims he is a replacement Christian, which I doubt he does. This is the belief that the Church has replaced Israel, and Israel has no part in the future with God. Bush can be a replacement Christian and not promote the giving away of God's land, which is what he wants to do. Does the Spirit of God indwell a person who blatantly contradicts the Word of the Spirit?

Speaking at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Bush insisted that "Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle-Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state." 4 March 2003
Bush personally committed to a Palestinian State.
Michael Freund The Jerusalem Post,
[The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.] http://www.revelations.org.za/PalestinianState.htm#Bush

It is an insane belief to form a nation that wants to destroy Israel? How could a Christian believe this?

PLO Charter, July 1-17, 1968. These words are still in effect, the original charter still displayed by the Palestine legation to the UN and other Palestinian bodies. These words will never be repealed despite what the greatest terrorist, Yasser Arafat claimed:

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East.

Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Palestinian+National+Charter.htm

And this demonic state is what George Bush supports.

November 21, 2001
Colin Powell's Message in Biblical Perspective.
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell’s message on Monday in Louisville, Kentucky, was reported to represent the Bush Administration’s Middle East position. The Bush Administration is in favor of the United Nations Security Council “land for peace” concept as spelled out in Resolutions 242 and 338 (reducing Israel back to the pre-1967 borders).
http://www.revelations.org.za/PalestinianState.htm#Bush

Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

In June, US President George Bush stated in a speech, “I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders” and for Israel, “I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.”
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Palestine/Background.asp

Helping to form a state that's prime goal is to destroy Israel is not something a Christian would do. God will never reject Israel, in the future, Israel will once again be God's people, although now, they have rejected their true Messiah. God has always rebuked His people when they disobey, but God has vowed by covenant to always be Israel's God.

"First, we are strengthening our financial commitment. Immediately after President Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian government, the United States lifted financial restrictions on the Palestinian Authority that we had imposed. This year, we will provide the Palestinians with more than $190 million in American assistance -- including funds for humanitarian relief in Gaza. To build on this support, I recently authorized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to join in a program that will help generate $228 million in lending to Palestinian businesses. Today, I announce our intention to make a direct contribution of $80 million to help Palestinians reform their security services -- a vital effort they're undertaking with the guidance of American General Keith Dayton. We will work with Congress and partners around the world to provide additional resources once a plan to build Palestinian institutions is in place. With all of this assistance, we are showing the Palestinian people that a commitment to peace leads to the generous support of the United States." George Bush July 16, 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html

March 22, 2005, Israel defies God by giving away his land. Israel hands over Tulkarem in the West Bank to the Palestinians. Bush supported this betrayal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7183904

This information is plenty of proof that George Bush has affirmed the giving away of Israel's land in violation of Joel 3:2, and Lev 25:23. Can a true Christian have this belief? The answer is an emphatic no!

2. George Bush supports homosexuality, as he is believes in civil unions for gays. He has appointed more homosexuals to Federal office than any other President in history. This is another violation of several scriptures:

Proverbs 17:15 (King James Version)
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD."

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

George Bush seems to always justify the wicked.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do," the president stated. "[S]tates ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others."
As noted by UPI, that is in sharp disagreement with the Republican Party platform. In fact, ABC's Gibson followed up with: "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" To which Bush replied: "Right." OCTOBER 24, 2004. http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/272004d.asp

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/112001b.asp Bush nominates another homosexual to office, April 11, 2001.

Bush appoints yet another homosexual to Federal office violating the Law of Nature. http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/6_4/pages/bush.html

Jesus affirmed the condemnation of homosexuality by affirming the law:

Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

3. George Bush believes The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is also the el ilah(allah) the moon god of the kabah of islam. When Mohammed rounded up his pirates to take over the world, he attacked the kabah in Arabia to destroy the three hundred idols there, took the name of the chief deity allah (el ilah), the god of all the gods. The chief deity was named "sin" who was the moon god, this is evidenced by the artifacts of crescent moons excavated in Arabia, along with the crescent moon on islamic flags, on top of churches, and the holy month of ramadan, which starts and ends with the appearing of the crescent moon. Muslims are worshipping the moon god.

The sabeans did not initially revolt or misunderstand who Mohammed's god was, because they already knew who allah was. “Allah” cannot be “God” if “allah” is the Arabic word for “god” because in the Qur’an Allah says that “Ilah” is the Arabic word for “God” and that “Allah” is the “Ilah’s” name. If that is not true, the ilah named Allah is lying, proving that he is not what Mohammad claimed him to be. If allah is the word for god than the islamic god has no name.

Oct. 26, 2004,
Bush on Religion and God
President Says He Believes Muslims and Christians Pray to Same God
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=193746&page=1

4. George Bush promotes the murder of unborn children, which the Law of Nature calls murder:

Bush Signs Title X Funding Increase for 2005
Planned Parenthood's Abortion Funding Increased
President George W. Bush and the Republican-majority Congress Increased Title X to record $288.3 million in FY 2005 on 12/8/04Title X is one of two major federal government funding sources for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of abortion centers (murdering over 244,000 unborn human beings per year by surgical abortion alone).
The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (founded by Margaret Sanger), the nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers.
http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm

George Bush has approved funding almost every year for abortions.

Judges 13:5 (King James Version)
"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

Conceiving is part of the birth of a son. It is not conceiving and bear tissue, but a human being.

In the end, George Bush is a pro homosexual, pro murder by abortion, anti-constitution, anti-Jesus Christ ecumenist. There are also many more violations of the Constitution that George Bush has committed, including Article I, Section 8, and the Fourth Amendment. Do not be deceived, George Bush is an enemy of Jesus Christ! Beware.