I have some friends who were involved in the occult. Not the buying tarot cards from a hippie in a head shop kind, but the real and scary stuff, the kind that God says you should execute people for. Those brothers repented and got right with the Lord, and as an act of contrition burned their books of magic. They had to pray over them to get them to burn, but that's not important here. Burning as a valid method of idol disposal is.
A lot of folks are upset over a fundamentalist Church hosting a "burn a koran" day this September 11th. I think they could find better use of their time, but there is some overreaction to the extent of "Christians shouldn't burn korans." I can't agree with that; I can think of several situations in which it would be a wonderful thing to do.
Imagine a family or large group of former Moslems who have just been liberated by the Gospel. They gather around the fire and throw that wicked, twisted book into the flames, rejoicing with wine, kissing their newly unveiled wives, praising God.
Picture a modern day Boniface in a village somewhere picking up a koran and throwing it into the fire saying, "Let's see allah do something about that."
Who could argue with that?
Closer to the point, even burning a koran as an act of contempt is not sin, and is always a better thing than building a mosque anywhere.
Now. Burning a koran as either an act of provocation or rah-rah patriotism is more often than not not a desirable act, because it is giving the finger to people to whom one ought to be more concerned with preaching the Gospel. We are to be bold, challenging and confrontational, but our goal is never to seek to insult. And that's where this Church is getting it wrong.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
The Mosque Thing
I'm back! I'll be posting more this week.
Let's talk about Cordoba House, shall we?
Of course, as a Christian man I am opposed to any house of idolatry being built anywhere in the nation. Why? Because the Lord hates it. It isn't that Cordoba is some kind of "bad" mosque; any mosque, temple, synagogue, or ashram is abominable to Christ. One must consistently believe what one believes.
Of course it is a finger in the eye to the nation and the victims of 9/11's families. This is not accidental. In fact, it is a dark funhouse-mirror version of what Christians have always done: build our Churches on top of former pagan temples, announcing that Jesus is Lord of that place now. The difference is that we evangelize and persuade the former worshipers themselves to tear down the pagan temples and their idols and build a Church.
Now, we have a problem here and it goes way back. Under our present polity, especially since the War Between the States, State and local governments do not enjoy the freedom they once did under the Constitution, strictly interpreted. "Congress shall make no law..." but New York City surely can.
They will not assert their rights because of the real problem, which is this: We are a polytheistic society. "Tolerance" and "pluralism" are simply wussy ways of saying what it really is. And we Christians have embraced that. Not content with the Biblical ideal of tolerance, we have embraced the twisted egalitarian interpretation. Contented to have Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior," we have not proclaimed Him as Lord of Manhattan and Everywhere Else.
And if that's who we're going to be, then let the Moslems build their mosque. It's not their fault they are taking the advantage we have handed them. To many it will stand as an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but what it really stands as is a testimony to the spinelessness of the American Christian man.
Let's talk about Cordoba House, shall we?
Of course, as a Christian man I am opposed to any house of idolatry being built anywhere in the nation. Why? Because the Lord hates it. It isn't that Cordoba is some kind of "bad" mosque; any mosque, temple, synagogue, or ashram is abominable to Christ. One must consistently believe what one believes.
Of course it is a finger in the eye to the nation and the victims of 9/11's families. This is not accidental. In fact, it is a dark funhouse-mirror version of what Christians have always done: build our Churches on top of former pagan temples, announcing that Jesus is Lord of that place now. The difference is that we evangelize and persuade the former worshipers themselves to tear down the pagan temples and their idols and build a Church.
Now, we have a problem here and it goes way back. Under our present polity, especially since the War Between the States, State and local governments do not enjoy the freedom they once did under the Constitution, strictly interpreted. "Congress shall make no law..." but New York City surely can.
They will not assert their rights because of the real problem, which is this: We are a polytheistic society. "Tolerance" and "pluralism" are simply wussy ways of saying what it really is. And we Christians have embraced that. Not content with the Biblical ideal of tolerance, we have embraced the twisted egalitarian interpretation. Contented to have Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior," we have not proclaimed Him as Lord of Manhattan and Everywhere Else.
And if that's who we're going to be, then let the Moslems build their mosque. It's not their fault they are taking the advantage we have handed them. To many it will stand as an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but what it really stands as is a testimony to the spinelessness of the American Christian man.
You Can't Apologize if You Didn't Do It
The Senate has passed (unanimously) a resolution to apologize for slavery. The country is falling apart around us, and this is what they are working on? I suppose it's good to keep them distracted from ruining the economy further. Let's talk about apologies.
I do not apologize for slavery; I hold no slaves. The federal government owes no apology; they hold no slaves. There are no former slaves to whom anyone can apologize. Does this need to be pointed out? Really? Is someone of the African-descended persuasion's lot in life improved by Tom Harkin feeling sorry? Should it be?
Kidnapping, according to Scripture, is a capital offense. Those who rounded up Africans and forced them into servitude should have been executed for it. But they weren't. And instead of the proper course of action, we gave 600,000 lives and the Republic that was founded on July 4th, 1776. It is enough.
Someone in the Senate going to apologize for John Brown? How about for Lincoln?
I do not apologize for slavery; I hold no slaves. The federal government owes no apology; they hold no slaves. There are no former slaves to whom anyone can apologize. Does this need to be pointed out? Really? Is someone of the African-descended persuasion's lot in life improved by Tom Harkin feeling sorry? Should it be?
Kidnapping, according to Scripture, is a capital offense. Those who rounded up Africans and forced them into servitude should have been executed for it. But they weren't. And instead of the proper course of action, we gave 600,000 lives and the Republic that was founded on July 4th, 1776. It is enough.
Someone in the Senate going to apologize for John Brown? How about for Lincoln?
Waterboarding
This came up on a friend's Facebook page, but I don't want to be a comments-monopolizer so I'll post my thoughts here.
If someone can make a Biblical defense of waterboarding, I'd like to read it. I can't imagine how that could be done.
There are two defenses of this procedure that I have heard. The first is that it doesn't really endanger or harm the recipient, and is therefore not torture. The second is that it has produced the desired results, and saved American lives.
Regarding the first point, does it matter if no real harm is done? You're inflicting torment on a guy to make him talk. He's suffering as if he were drowning. That's torture. If the practice is Biblically justifiable, then don't be a wuss and call it what it is and do it. If it is not justifiable, don't do it, ever.
The second point is simply the ends justifying the means. That trick never works. If God forbids this sort of thing, then obedience to Him is not going to result in disaster, and disobedience to Him cannot result in anything but disaster. Let those of us who are Calvinists think Calviny thoughts: God is sovereign.
I'm open to having my mind changed. To the Law and to the Testimony! Someone persuade me.
If someone can make a Biblical defense of waterboarding, I'd like to read it. I can't imagine how that could be done.
There are two defenses of this procedure that I have heard. The first is that it doesn't really endanger or harm the recipient, and is therefore not torture. The second is that it has produced the desired results, and saved American lives.
Regarding the first point, does it matter if no real harm is done? You're inflicting torment on a guy to make him talk. He's suffering as if he were drowning. That's torture. If the practice is Biblically justifiable, then don't be a wuss and call it what it is and do it. If it is not justifiable, don't do it, ever.
The second point is simply the ends justifying the means. That trick never works. If God forbids this sort of thing, then obedience to Him is not going to result in disaster, and disobedience to Him cannot result in anything but disaster. Let those of us who are Calvinists think Calviny thoughts: God is sovereign.
I'm open to having my mind changed. To the Law and to the Testimony! Someone persuade me.
From President St. Clair:
"I foresee the day when rights will subsume responsibilities, when the poor and the despised will become wage-slaves of the elites; and the mercantilism that we have fought against, and the tyranny that we have stood against, will be swallowed by the average American citizen, and they will call that 'freedom.'"
Case in Point
President Bush said Monday his $3.1 trillion budget plan will keep the U.S. economy growing and protect the U.S. militarily...
...Bush said his plan would boost money for education, health, housing and helps make the tax code fairer.
"American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition." R.L. Dabney.
AMEN.
Theonomy Primer, pt.4
We have seen that the ceremonial aspects of the Law, being types and shadows of redemption in Christ, are kept in a different manner in the life of the New Covenant. These commandments are restorative in nature, providing the means for the people of God to return to fellowship with Him when they have transgressed His Law. They deal with sin. Our sins being forgiven through Christ, there is no need for further restorative sacrifices. His having become our great High Priest, there is no longer any need to prefigure Him with an earthly one. The Spirit having been poured out on all flesh, there is no longer any need to typify Israel's sanctification in the holiness codes.
Note that all the commandments, in principle, are still being kept. Christ continually makes intercession for His people in Heaven, presenting His blood shed for them. The love and baptismal marking of Christians distinguishes them from those outside.
Note also that the means by which we know the ceremonial Law is kept differently in our age is subsequent revelation. God gave the commandments and then He revealed how they have changed.
This illustrates the guiding theonomic principle: All of God's standing commandments are to be presumed to be binding upon men unless and until He says otherwise.
"Standing" here distinguishes between statutes given in general circumstances rather than specific cases, such as "kill all the Canaanites."
Following this hermeneutical guideline, we will discover that God has in no way abrogated or altered all of the commandments of the Old Covenant. They are presumed to be binding in much of the Apostles' writing.
What we see is that sin has been definitively dealt with. The curse of the Law upon sin has been lifted from us.
Sins are forgiven. But what about crimes? Here is a crucial distinction. Crime involves mainly our transgressions of the Second Table, those commandments concerning loving our neighbor. Sin is our trespass against God. Both are defined by the Law, but that part which deals with loving our neighbor has not been altered or set aside by New Covenant revelation.
What does this mean for us? What does it mean for society?
It means that, in the Christian's life, he is to work out his sanctification following the pattern of conduct that God has provided in both the Old and New Testaments. He governs himself and his family by means of them.
It means that, in a Christian society, the loving of one's neighbor would be defined by fulfilling God's Law toward him. The principles and examples in the case laws would be the guidelines for civil law in the nation.
Now this includes the punishment of crime. And this is where modern people run into difficulty. In pt. 5, we'll take a look at that.
Note that all the commandments, in principle, are still being kept. Christ continually makes intercession for His people in Heaven, presenting His blood shed for them. The love and baptismal marking of Christians distinguishes them from those outside.
Note also that the means by which we know the ceremonial Law is kept differently in our age is subsequent revelation. God gave the commandments and then He revealed how they have changed.
This illustrates the guiding theonomic principle: All of God's standing commandments are to be presumed to be binding upon men unless and until He says otherwise.
"Standing" here distinguishes between statutes given in general circumstances rather than specific cases, such as "kill all the Canaanites."
Following this hermeneutical guideline, we will discover that God has in no way abrogated or altered all of the commandments of the Old Covenant. They are presumed to be binding in much of the Apostles' writing.
What we see is that sin has been definitively dealt with. The curse of the Law upon sin has been lifted from us.
Sins are forgiven. But what about crimes? Here is a crucial distinction. Crime involves mainly our transgressions of the Second Table, those commandments concerning loving our neighbor. Sin is our trespass against God. Both are defined by the Law, but that part which deals with loving our neighbor has not been altered or set aside by New Covenant revelation.
What does this mean for us? What does it mean for society?
It means that, in the Christian's life, he is to work out his sanctification following the pattern of conduct that God has provided in both the Old and New Testaments. He governs himself and his family by means of them.
It means that, in a Christian society, the loving of one's neighbor would be defined by fulfilling God's Law toward him. The principles and examples in the case laws would be the guidelines for civil law in the nation.
Now this includes the punishment of crime. And this is where modern people run into difficulty. In pt. 5, we'll take a look at that.
These, and only these.
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Then bash your head against a wall. :)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;These are the powers of Congress. Next time you hear of a bill being proposed or a law passed, see if it conforms to the above list.
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Then bash your head against a wall. :)
Theonomy Primer, pt. 3
The Commandments of God have a place in the life of the Christian. The New Testament makes that clear. But which ones? And how are they kept?
The Law is summed up in two great commands: love God, love your neighbor. These are fleshed out in the Ten Words. The first table, 1-4, deals with loving God, the second, 5-10, with loving men. These are fleshed out further in the 600-odd examples in the rest of the Torah.
Seeing this structure enables us to understand what the New Covenant requires of us in our lawkeeping. The New Testament teaches us that the ceremonies and sacrificial system were types and shadows of Christ's redemptive and restorative work on our behalf. They deal primarily with the first table of the Law. The apostles teach that we no longer follow the typological system, because those shadows are taken up into Jesus' High Priesthood in Heaven.
But then they also teach us to adhere to the same moral commands as before. Notice that that which they teach us to do pertains to the second table of the Law. These commandments are oriented man-to-man, not man-to-God. The relationship we hold to one another is the same as it has been, and therefore the requirements God has of us regarding our neighbor remain the same.
When we transgress the first table, we have a means of restoration that is applied differently this side of Christ's Advent. But what about when we transgress the second table? Ah, that will be answered next time...
The Law is summed up in two great commands: love God, love your neighbor. These are fleshed out in the Ten Words. The first table, 1-4, deals with loving God, the second, 5-10, with loving men. These are fleshed out further in the 600-odd examples in the rest of the Torah.
Seeing this structure enables us to understand what the New Covenant requires of us in our lawkeeping. The New Testament teaches us that the ceremonies and sacrificial system were types and shadows of Christ's redemptive and restorative work on our behalf. They deal primarily with the first table of the Law. The apostles teach that we no longer follow the typological system, because those shadows are taken up into Jesus' High Priesthood in Heaven.
But then they also teach us to adhere to the same moral commands as before. Notice that that which they teach us to do pertains to the second table of the Law. These commandments are oriented man-to-man, not man-to-God. The relationship we hold to one another is the same as it has been, and therefore the requirements God has of us regarding our neighbor remain the same.
When we transgress the first table, we have a means of restoration that is applied differently this side of Christ's Advent. But what about when we transgress the second table? Ah, that will be answered next time...
Education for Outrage
When was the last time you read the U.S. Constitution? I confess: for me it's been years. So I'm taking the time to actually read a list of our founding documents. They're all relatively short.
I'm going to start with the Mayflower Compact and work forward from there. I expect to write a lot of political rants as a result, so be forewarned.
Here's a taste: Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court but nowhere authorizes it to interpret the Constitution in the way it does today. Strict construction is assumed, IMO.
I'm going to start with the Mayflower Compact and work forward from there. I expect to write a lot of political rants as a result, so be forewarned.
Here's a taste: Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court but nowhere authorizes it to interpret the Constitution in the way it does today. Strict construction is assumed, IMO.
Theonomy Primer, pt. 2
The Law of God (in the Old Covenant specifically) has always been troubling for Christians. They never quite know what to do with it. They have a vague sense of needing to keep at least some of it, all the while denying that they are bound to do so, because as New Covenant believers we are "under Grace." So they usually settle on the Ten Commandments. That seems pretty clear. We have to keep the Ten Commandments. They're the big ones, right? But wait, Christian, are you saying we are to keep the Old Testament Law? Uh...no, isn't that legalism? We're "free from the Law..."
It gets confusing.
Consider Jesus' attitude toward the Law:
Now that gets interpreted in a lot of ways, which I'm not going to get into here. Suffice to say that whatever "fulfill" means, it can't mean "do away with," because the Lord just said He didn't come to do that. He goes on:
We see that there is a place for God's Law in the life of one who would follow Jesus. And, as the One Who fulfilled the Law, He kept it--perfectly. As those being conformed to His image, we grow in our Law-keeping. As we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, He begins to establish the Law in us. As we love, we fulfill the Law ourselves.
Do you see what is going on? The Law is a pattern of sanctification for the people of God. It is not about justifying oneself by following the rules. It has never been about that. Rather, it is the way that someone who loves God demonstrates that love--by keeping His commandments.
Next time, we'll look at how the Christian keeps the Law.
It gets confusing.
Consider Jesus' attitude toward the Law:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Now that gets interpreted in a lot of ways, which I'm not going to get into here. Suffice to say that whatever "fulfill" means, it can't mean "do away with," because the Lord just said He didn't come to do that. He goes on:
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.So the Law is to be taught and kept, according to Jesus. And yet, He has come to fulfill it.
We see that there is a place for God's Law in the life of one who would follow Jesus. And, as the One Who fulfilled the Law, He kept it--perfectly. As those being conformed to His image, we grow in our Law-keeping. As we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, He begins to establish the Law in us. As we love, we fulfill the Law ourselves.
Do you see what is going on? The Law is a pattern of sanctification for the people of God. It is not about justifying oneself by following the rules. It has never been about that. Rather, it is the way that someone who loves God demonstrates that love--by keeping His commandments.
Next time, we'll look at how the Christian keeps the Law.
Theonomy Primer, pt.1
Again, starting with some simple definitions...
"Theonomy" is a coined term for a particular approach to Christian ethics and government. It literally means "God's Law" as opposed to autonomy, or "self-law." This approach derives from many sources but is very highly influenced by the Presuppositional philosophy of Dr. Van Til (discussed in my last posting).
The basic Theonomic premise is that God has certain ethical requirements that men are bound to follow. In this sense, all Christians are theonomists to some degree. Theonomy as a particular view holds that these requirements apply to every area of life, including the family, Church and civil spheres. God's commandments cover much more than individual morality.
The real debate comes down to which commandments in the Scriptures apply to Christians. In particular question is Old Testament Law. Theonomists believe that all Biblical Law is binding upon men, though the New Covenant modifies the application of some of those laws.
It gets hairy for most folks at this point. Most Evangelicals have no idea what to to with the Law. They will instantly balk at an idea such as implementing the penal sanctions of the Old Testament for civil crimes. They often see the Law as barbaric or unduly harsh. We'll see if that holds true.
So next time, we will begin with the Law Itself. Where does it fit in the Christian's life? Anywhere? Everywhere? What would God have us to do?
"Theonomy" is a coined term for a particular approach to Christian ethics and government. It literally means "God's Law" as opposed to autonomy, or "self-law." This approach derives from many sources but is very highly influenced by the Presuppositional philosophy of Dr. Van Til (discussed in my last posting).
The basic Theonomic premise is that God has certain ethical requirements that men are bound to follow. In this sense, all Christians are theonomists to some degree. Theonomy as a particular view holds that these requirements apply to every area of life, including the family, Church and civil spheres. God's commandments cover much more than individual morality.
The real debate comes down to which commandments in the Scriptures apply to Christians. In particular question is Old Testament Law. Theonomists believe that all Biblical Law is binding upon men, though the New Covenant modifies the application of some of those laws.
It gets hairy for most folks at this point. Most Evangelicals have no idea what to to with the Law. They will instantly balk at an idea such as implementing the penal sanctions of the Old Testament for civil crimes. They often see the Law as barbaric or unduly harsh. We'll see if that holds true.
So next time, we will begin with the Law Itself. Where does it fit in the Christian's life? Anywhere? Everywhere? What would God have us to do?
In Congress, July 4, 1776
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States...
...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
(Emphasis added)
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States...
...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
(Emphasis added)
Squandering Their Inheritance
The news that the history of the Crusades will no longer be taught in British schools in order to avoid offending Moslems is the latest in a long line of European capitulations to Islamic immigrants, who are growing increasingly militant in the nature and scope of their demands.
Ironically, that against which the Crusaders claimed to be fighting is coming to pass in spades as their descendants lay down and surrender their nations.
Deus Vult? Probably. Europe sold its Christian birthright for humanist pottage a long time ago.
Ironically, that against which the Crusaders claimed to be fighting is coming to pass in spades as their descendants lay down and surrender their nations.
Deus Vult? Probably. Europe sold its Christian birthright for humanist pottage a long time ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)