The Broadside | Nancy Pelosi Tells Republicans What She Really Thinks of Them

I’m continually amazed by how openly hostile Democrats are toward anyone outside their party. And how diametrically opposed our worldviews are.

AUSTIN, Texas – Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested that “30%” of Republican voters will never vote for Democrats because of their racism, sexism and homophobia. 

Speaking at the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival on Saturday, Pelosi was pressed by podcast host Kara Swisher on why the presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump is so close.

“There are people who will never be, shall we say, inclined to support Democrats because of – they just have a different orientation toward women, people of color, LGBTQ, you know, they just are not ever going to be there,” Pelosi said. “So, say that’s about like 30% or something like that… of the Republicans. 

This is just sloppy thinking, typical of the progressive movement. “[T]hey just have a different orientation …” Ackshully, Nance, it’s YOU who have a “different orientation” toward those tribes you’ve created. Don’t forget that you and your party started this by pushing abortion, gay marriage and minority supremacy. Before you, our culture was quite stable.

Then, she just throws out a completely made-up “30% or something like that” of all Republicans. I know that both sides speak in generalities, but if you’re going to accuse your opponents of having a “different orientation”—a progressive term if there ever was one—then be factual.

“But here’s where I think we have to be as respectful and understanding as possible,” she continued. “There are people who are concerned. They have fear of globalization. They saw the factory down the road move overseas. They’re fearful of innovation. Their father is a truck driver, and now they’re gonna have auto-“

“Autonomous truck,” Swisher interjected.

“Yeah,” Pelosi replied. “And so the innovation, globalization, and they include immigration… So, understandably, these people have a concern about the future for themselves, but also for their children.”

Isn’t that generous and sensitive of Nancy, handling those with a “different orientation” with kid gloves? “Respectful and understanding as possible” … *spit* … as she led two sham impeachments and tore up Trump’s State of the Union behind his back on national TV.

She says we have “a fear of globalization” as though that’s silly, but then says, we “saw the factory down the road move overseas.” Well, yes. The factory down the road put everyone in that factory out of work so that the owners could reduce costs. Such contempt for flyover country.

And we’re “fearful of innovation.” No, we’re not. We’re fearful of government mandating such debacles as EVs which are unsustainable and a total scam. We’re not stupid—the energy to charge those vehicles has to come from coal or, better yet, nuclear energy. But the progressives are in thrall to Mother Earth, not everyday Americans.

It’s a way for ultra-rich liberals like Pelosi to get even richer, like she does trading on insider information from her position in the government. Don’t lecture me about how the rich “do not really want to pay taxes or have any regulation of clean air, clean water, any of that.”

Considering you and your liberal pals create the taxes and regulations from your perch above us all, I think we should be concerned.

She’s right that we have a “different orientation.” But it’s clear that she thinks we’re wrong in our view and she and her progressive Marxist troops are right in theirs.

And we do the same.

The Broadside | Two Political Analysts Predict Opposite Outcomes in November

Welcome back!

No, not you.

Me!

Hard to believe that it’s been over a month since I last posted. That’s the longest I’ve gone without a post over the last four-and-half years. I’d apologize, but I can’t say I’m sorry.

August was a month full of travel and working diligently to complete that project and this past week one of my littles had a little. I’m a grandfather and now I smell like menthol and wear suspenders and carry Werther’s candy in my pockets.

AnyH0oO.

The last time we were together I believe Joe “my word as a Biden” Brandon was still the Resident. A lot has happened since then, amiright? The Demokraken, champions of “muh democracy,” forced Joey Vanilla Bean out of the race and installed Cacklin’ KUHmala without so much as the courtesy of citizen input in the form of a primary.

Nope, the Democalvinists predetermined that their tribe chose KaMAHla. How’s that working out?

The formula Allan Lichtman has used to correctly predict nearly every presidential race since 1984, his “Keys to the White House,” was developed in 1981 with mathematician Vladimir Keilis-Borok and is based on their analysis of presidential elections dating back to 1860. The “keys” consist of 13 true or false questions, parameters that, if true, favor stability. 

“The way it works is real simple. If six or more keys — any six — go against the White House party, they are predicted losers. Otherwise, they’re predicted winners,” Lichtman told Fox News Digital this week. “And by the way, this also led to a prediction of Donald Trump’s win, which made me virtually alone in making that prediction in 2016.” 

Lichtman says the Democrats represented by Harris could lose five keys “at most” and that is why he is predicting that “we are going to have a precedent-breaking election and Kamala Harris will become the first woman President of the United States.”

There you have it. Get used to Mrs. President’s cackling after a vapid, vacuous, and uninspiring word salad, “unburdened by what has been.”

The only saving grace is that Lichtman has been wrong once before, which means his method of prediction isn’t foolproof. Even Tom Brady lost a Super Bowl or three.

So, for instance, there’s also this:

A liberal pollster’s latest projection shows Donald Trump securing a blowout victory over Kamala Harris.

Nate Silver’s prediction places the Republican hopeful’s chances of winning the electoral college vote at 63.8 percent, compared to 36 percent for Harris.

Silver’s modelling, published on his blog Silver Bulletin, also places Trump ahead in all of the crucial swing states.

He predicts 312 electoral college votes for Trump versus 226 for Harris in a no toss-up map.

The figure is a massive upswing on the 227 Trump secured against Biden in 2020 and even an improvement on his victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 when he romped to the White House with 304 electoral college votes.

That’s encouraging. But I have to warn you, if it’s anywhere close, the Democrats will cheat. They did it in 2020 and they’re figuring out how to do it in 2024. They’ll flood a toilet in Arizona again which will stop the counting in six swing states and then truck in the pallet-loads of ballots to feed the voting machines and we’ll see KamaLA suddenly overcome Trump’s victory.

By all that’s logical, Trump’s going to be elected for the third time this fall. But may God have mercy on the U.S. if Kamalarama is the certified winner.

The Broadside | Brandon Gives 9.11 Mastermind a Plea Deal to Avoid Death Penalty

Happy Friday!

I’ll be traveling for the next week, and most of the month, so there won’t be many posts in August. I’ve really got to learn how to leverage AI to take over my blogging duties.

I will never forget where I was when I heard about the planes hitting the World Trade Center in New York. I had just logged in at the office and was talking with my boss when another associate said, “a plane just hit the World Trade Center.” I imagined a small plane like a Cessna. It wasn’t until a second plane hit that we knew something awful was happening.

That attack ended up killing nearly 3,000 people that day, most in the collapsed twin towers, including businessmen and business women, firefighters, police officers, medical personnel, and all those on the doomed flights. It is the single worst attack on the US homeland, ever.

I still, to this day, despise Osama bin Laden and his henchmen for what they did. I curse his name every September 11. As a Christian, I never gloated over his death because I believe that redemption is possible for everyone, no matter how evil they are. Plus, we’re told not to:

Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
    when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,
or the Lord will see and disapprove
    and turn his wrath away from them.
— Proverbs 24:17-18

But since that door was closed with OBL’s assassination, it is hard not to think that he deserves every ounce of hell he gets.

So it is with some irritation that I read that the rest of the planners of that attack 23 years ago—especially the mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—have “negotiated” a plea agreement with the current administration.

The alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and two other terrorists being held in Guantánamo Bay will be spared the death penalty under a deal with prosecutors, it was revealed Wednesday.

The announcement was a bitter pill to swallow for victims’ families who have anxiously awaited the conclusion of the case for nearly 24 years — many of whom felt death was the only appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of the heinous attacks.

A spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions (OMC), which is prosecuting the case, confirmed it had entered into pre-trial agreements with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the accused principal architect of the al Qaeda attacks — and two alleged co-conspirators, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, all of whom have been held at the US military prison on the coast of Cuba since 2003.

This isn’t justice. Justice would have been standing them in front of a dirt embankment and shooting them after facing a military tribunal for the attack on our soil. I agree with John Hinderaker:

It is reasonable to blame the weak and borderline anti-American Biden administration for this travesty, and to be sure they deserve opprobrium. But the original fault goes back much further. The idea of treating these terrorists, whom we used military means to capture, as mere criminal defendants entitled to the panoply of criminal procedures available to Americans, including, at the end, plea bargaining, was a farce from the beginning. They should have been interrogated mercilessly and then shot, a long time ago. They deserved nothing more.

This is a slap in the face to not only those who survived the attack and to those who lost loved ones in the attack, but it’s also a slap in the face to all Americans. We don’t negotiate with terrorists. We don’t put up with that $#!+. But, as Hinderaker says, the “borderline anti-American Biden administration” is all about trashing our norms, not restoring them as he promised four years ago.

I strongly disagree with Hinderaker that they’re “borderline.” They’re all clearly anti-American as historic and traditional America is understood.

The plea deal is a tragic joke that isn’t funny. We live in an upside down world and it’s getting harder to believe it will improve any time soon.

But chin up. At least we can pretend, for now, that Trump will win and drain the swamp.

Have a good weekend, and a good week that follows.

The Broadside | Trump Accepts the Republican Nomination for President and Gives Acceptance Speech

I watched all of Donald J. Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last night and “live blogged” as it progressed. Here’s my impressions.

Dana White introduces Donald J. Trump. Trump is a proven leader, a fearless leader, who never gives up. Lee Greenwood sings “God Bless the USA.” Trump emerges during the song and Corey Comperatore’s helmet and coat come out to be on stage during his speech. Nice touch.

He says he’s here to lay out a vision for all Americans. We rise together or we fall apart. There’s no winning for just half the country.

Trump tells the story of surviving the attempted assassination. “You’ll only hear it from me once because it’s too painful to tell.”

He sounds subdued. The Ms. says he sounds sad.

Trump praises the Secret Service. Wow! Tough to reconcile that with the bumbling images we saw. But he has to work with them now and, should he be elected, again in the White House, so probably wise. But he needs to dump the Director of the SS when he gets back in the White House.

“I had God on my side. I felt that.” I have no reason to doubt that.

Spending a lot of time on the shot; his ears; the crowd “that didn’t want to leave me.”

He says, “I’m not supposed to be here tonight …” and the crowd begins to chant, “Yes you are!” “Yes you are!” “Yes you are!”

“I stand here only by the grace of Almighty God.” That is humble and, I think, more genuine than I’ve heard in the past. Maybe being grazed by a bullet whizzing past your noggin does that to you. He came within a pencil’s width of buying the farm.

Trump is full of hyperbole … that’s his style. Everything is “the greatest” and “like you’ve never seen” and “in the history of our country.”

He has raised $6.3 million for the families of those affected by the assassination attempt. I think asking the crowd to observe a moment of silence for Comperatore is a good move. He’s almost (almost) being pastoral (in a Trumpian way).

The fighter in him comes forward, but again, it’s very subdued. “I’m more determined than ever. Our resolve is unbroken. Nothing will stop me in this mission. I will never stop fighting for you, your family, our magnificent country.”

He goes after the Democrat party. “I am the one saving democracy for the people of our country.” I like that he states the obvious truth.

Entire case in Florida thrown out of court. “Drop the partisan witch hunts.” Again, an appeal to unity. We know it will fall on deaf ears, but now the Democrats will have to respond top that appeal. Trump is being positive and all about pulling the nation together, while the Dems demonize half the country. Very stark contrast.

I’m really surprised by how low his energy seems to be. Reminds me of his jab at “low energy Jeb” during the 2016 campaign.

“I am trying to buy your vote!” Good for a laugh.

Turns his attention to laying out a vision for all of America. Recounts some of his accomplishments in his first administration.

  • Right to try.
  • Space force.
  • Reduced regulations.
  • Cut taxes.

“We have to rescue our nation from incompetent leadership.” Isn’t that the truth!

We have an inflation issue. Illegal immigration crisis. Massive invasion: they spread misery, poverty, crime. International crisis: war in Europe and Middle East; teetering on the edge of World War III.

“I make this pledge: I will end the inflation crisis; “drill, baby, drill” to end energy crisis; leads to a large scale decline in prices.”

“We will pay off debt and reduce taxes even more.”

End the illegal immigration crisis by closing the border and finish the wall. Is most of the wall already built? I’m not sure that’s true. He says it is. This should be fact-checked.

“I will end the wars in Ukraine and Israel.”

“The damage this administration has done” is unbelievable. This is also true.

“We had the greatest economy in the history of the world.” Really? Again — true or hyperbole?

“107% of jobs are being taken by illegal aliens. They’re taking jobs especially from blacks and Hispanics.” I have no doubt this is true; that’s partly why blacks are backing Trump. BTW, how do you take more than 100% of jobs?

“We have our great speaker of the House with us tonight…” He’ll have to work with Mike Johnson, but most of us true conservatives don’t particularly like his leadership.

Talks about the opportunity to become a net energy exporter because we have vast reserves of oil under our feet.

Trump accuses the Dems of spending “trillions of dollars” but so did he when he was in office. The difference is that he had a great economy that could’ve paid down our debt. He promises to do that.

End the electric vehicle mandate on Day One. China is building large car manufacturing plants in Mexico to sell cars in the U.S. without tax. Trump will put a 100 – 200 percent tariffs on them. Good!

“At the center of our plan is massive tax cuts … ‘no tax on tips'” in the service industry … “Let them keep their money.” That’s something I’ve been saying for years: I want a politician who will increase my freedom and let me keep more of my money. Music to my ears but cut my taxes, too.

Illegal immigrant invasion. “Invasion” is his word for it. Totally agree.

People can come but have to come legally. Puts up chart to show what he did about illegal immigration when he was in office, leads to funniest line of the night: “Last time I put up that chart I never really got to look at it.” LOL

Crime rate is going up here and crime statistics are going down in other countries. We’re being laughed at by the rest of the world. Venezuela and El Salvador have dropped crime by 70% … by sending their criminals to the U.S. We will launch the largest deportation operation in our history. This is one promise I hope he can keep.

Kim Jong Un “misses me” LOL

Criticizes Afghanistan withdrawal, Russia operating subs by Cuba. “Never would have happened if I was president.” The hostages being held by Hamas “better be released by the time I’m sworn in.” Good threat.

Well, this is impressive: will build an Iron Dome just like Israel has. Invokes Ronald Reagan and “Star Wars.” America First! And why not? Why shouldn’t we have the very latest technology to protect our homeland?

Rips Biden for promising to cure cancer but nothing happens. Men out of women’s sports … immediately.

“America is on the cusp of a new golden age.” We have to produce massive amounts of energy. AI needs twice the electricity we have now.

Calls out Franklin Graham for asking him not to use foul language. LOL Honors Franklin, Billy Graham, and his own father.

The speech is very much a call to unity. Crowd chants, “Win! Win! Win!”

Overall impression: he hit all the key issues, including the economy, energy independence and the invasion over the southern border. I particularly was impressed with the idea of building an Iron Dome in the US, with promises to drill and become energy independent, and looking at the future of AI. But it was delivered without the “edge” I’m used to. He’s the nominee, so I don’t know that it matters, but I’d like to see some of the combative energy return.

What did you think?

Have a good weekend.

The Broadside | Democrats Try Protecting Their Invasion Investment

As if we didn’t know that Democrats are importing millions of foreigners to create a new class of peasants and criminals who will vote to keep them in power in exchange for handouts funded by the middle class (until they die off or are executed during the eventual purge), the anti-American party made its intentions abundantly clear this week as they whip opposition to a Republican-sponsored bill that will require voters provide proof of citizenship to cast ballots in federal elections.

Republicans are pushing the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, otherwise known as the SAVE Act, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act, and require states to obtain proof of citizenship from voters for federal elections, as well as purge noncitizens from voter rolls. 

Democratic leadership is urging its House members to vote against the bill in the lead-up to the vote, saying it would place “an extreme burden [on] countless Americans” in order to vote.

Anyone want to guess what that “extreme burden” is? Anyone? Bueller? The article doesn’t say what it is, but it isn’t hard to guess. Democrats use ambiguous terms and emotional language without any detail such as “extreme” and “burden” and “countless” to drive fear and moral outrage.

But we can guess what the problem is because here’s what the bill would require:

[House speaker Mike Johnson] detailed in the X thread that, if passed, the law would: require “state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing voter registration forms”; require “an individual to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections”; allow “state officials to accept a wide variety of documents that will make it easy for CITIZENS to register to vote in federal elections”; provide “states with access to federal agency databases so they can remove noncitizens from voter rolls and confirm citizenship for individuals lacking proof of citizenship,” among other directives. 

Under the legislation, voters would be required to provide proof of citizenship via IDs and documentation such as a passport, a government-issued photo ID showing proof the individual was born in the U.S., military IDs, or a valid photo ID as well as documentation showing proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, the legislation states. 

Democrats don’t want their new voter base to have to provide documentation like photo IDs, passports or birth certificates. Remember, these are “undocumented migrants.” How can they vote if we demand that they provide proof of citizenship?

And why would the hard Leftists oppose such measures if that’s not what the problem is? The vast majority of Americans have “government-issued” photo IDs because of the surveillance state we live in. Who are these “countless Americans” they refer to as being extremely burdened?

Elon Musk waded into the battle on X.

Yep. We’re not stupid. We know exactly what they’re doing.

And patriotic Americans are waking up to it.

Daily Broadside | Get Ready for One Party Rule

You know you’re being disenfranchised, right?

Tucker’s four points:

  1. There are at least 22 million illegals in the U.S.
  2. Democrats are calling for the legalization of all illegals (at least 22 million new voters)
  3. The overwhelming majority of first time immigrant voters vote Democrat
  4. The greatest margin of victory in a presidential election was 17 million votes in 1984

This is all about a permanent electoral majority. A permanent DEMOCRAT electoral majority.

Here’s some of the conversation that Tucker had with Catherine Engelbrecht from True the Vote.

TC: There is no way to justify an [sic] economic grounds mass immigration in 2024. So once again, why is it happening? And it’s happening for political reasons. It’s happening because the Democratic Party has ceased making case for itself to Americans. And so in order to keep power, in fact, to expand their power and to preside over the one-party state that they desire, they’re going to need a brand new electorate, and this is their electorate. Foreigners will choose your leaders. You’re not allowed to choose the leaders of foreign countries, but foreigners will choose your leaders, including in this election, this 2024 presidential election.

Well, how would that work? It’s illegal, you say, for illegal aliens to vote in a federal election. Well, actually, it’s not illegal, it turns out. Congress passed something in the US Code, the federal code, a line that unbeknownst to the rest of us, makes it legal for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections if they believe they are citizens. It’s a state of mind. Did you know that? We didn’t know that. Most people didn’t know that. Katherine Angelbrecht just found this provision in the US Code. That’s the thing she reads because she’s the founder of True the Vote and has been working on these issues for a few years now. She joins us to explain what she’s found. Katherine Albrecht, thank you so much for coming on.

His point about foreigners choosing our next president—it’s insane, but it’s really the only way to look at it if there’s any truth to it. Tucker goes on to ask Catherine to explain.

TC: Would you mind explaining what seems at first blush a very far-fetched idea that the US Code, as of right now, as of our speaking, would allow illegal aliens to vote in the upcoming presidential election? How would that work?

CE: Yeah. Well, True the Vote The organization I founded some years ago has been long involved in looking at the accuracy of the voter rolls, and we’ve long maintained that inaccurate voter rolls lead to inaccurate elections. With that as a backdrop, we’ve been very concerned about the lack of availability to determine citizenship status, not just by groups like ours, but by states themselves. They can’t get close enough to a citizenship status database to make good determinations. That then led me to look a little deeper, because as you rightly lay out, there’s a motivation here. So what might that be? We’ve seen many, many videos of people coming across the border who are talking about their excitement about voting for Joe Biden and claiming that they are citizens. But yet we hear debates in Congress where the congressmen will say, Don’t worry, the non-citizens can’t vote. It’s a crime of perjury. It’s a felony. So okay, we took a deep look at the criminal code, and Title 18 left us just gobsmacked. Because when you read all the way through it as it lists all of the stipulations against non-citizen voting in federal elections and lays out the Penalties, Therefore, scroll all the way down to the fine print.

What you read is that non-citizens can vote without penalty if at the time they are voting, they believe themselves to be US citizens.

Our UniParty politicians wrote into law that if someone merely thinks themselves a citizen, they won’t be punished for voting in an election in which they have no legal right to vote.

TC: Is there any question that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are going to vote Democrat when they vote, and they will vote?

CE: Yeah, I certainly see that the NGOs and the outfits that are bringing them across the country are grooming them for that purpose. That seems to be very apparent. They are immediately given access to all manner of social service programs. Those social service programs have as a portion of the application an automatic voter registration feature. States aren’t allowed to ask for proof of citizenship upon registration. I mean, this is layer upon layer upon layer of dysfunction. Wait, wait, wait.

TC: The Biden administration is registering illegal aliens to vote when they get here?

CE: They certainly are setting up all of the place settings to do it. They are registering them for government sanction programs like Medicaid, like Affordable Care Act. They’re giving them access to food stamps, lodging, other welfare types of programs. All of those programs come with the application. A opt-out voter registration. It is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. That is, that it’s in fact, exactly what’s happening, that non-citizens are being registered. States have no ability to stop it. If you are so fortunate as to find a way to prove this caught in the act, then you refer back to Title 18 that says, That was just a state of mind. So no harm, no foul, and it will be too late.

TC: I mean, so the election already seems rigged.

Exactly. The Democrats have brought in a bought and paid for new electorate and will hand them citizenship right after they give them free food, medical care and shelter.

But the Democrats aren’t even hiding what they’re doing anymore. Right on cue:

Keep this is mind as you go to the voting booth this fall.

Make sure you vote this fall.

Have a good weekend.

Twenty Five Inconvenient Realites | Part II

This is the second installment of “Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities” which document twenty five facts that characterized our nation’s pursuit of Independence during the Revolutionary War.

Ours is a unique history because of the way we depended on God and based our approach to government on Biblical Absolutes.

While it can be a lively debate, it’s nevertheless an obvious truism that our nation’s beginnings were decidedly influenced by the Christian doctrine once you stand back and let the facts speak for themselves.

What follows is another five facts. You can read the remaining 15 by clicking here.

If you want to test your knowledge, click here to access the “Muscular Christianity Campus” and take the quiz!


6) Third Verse of our National Anthem

Our national motto is derived from the third verse or our National Anthem:

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”

Yet again another example of how many recognize that the “separation” of church and state doesn’t mean the elmination of the church and its influence on the state.

7) The Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson
The Four Evangelists
Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but he nevertheless looked to the Bible as the greatest source of moral teachings known to man:

…there never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four evangelists.24

That was Jefferson’s primary justification for admiring the Christian faith, while not subscribing to it completely. But before one can dismiss Jefferson’s perspective as being inconsequential to the way in which it contributed to the philsophical structure of the American government, you have to first acknowledge the way in which he pointed to the Scriptures as being the Standard that defined moral behavior:

…the religion of Jesus is founded on the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknoleged. thinking men of all nations rallied readily to the doctrine of one only god, and embraced it with the pure morals which Jesus inculcated.25

The following quote is anecdotal, meaning that you won’t find it in anything written by Jefferson himself. But it’s nevertheless preserved in the Library of Congress as an exchange between Jefferson and a friend of his that was observed  by Reverend Ethan Allen who was the pastor of Christ Church where Jefferson attended. Seeing him on his way to church one Sunday, Jefferson’s friend asked him where he was going. Jefferson responded by saying he was on his way to church to which his friend responded with a bit of surprise asking him why he would go to church when he didn’t believe a word of it. Jefferson replied by saying,

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.26

Again, it isn’t documented anywhere in Jefferson’s writings, but it’s credibility is believable given it’s place within the Library of Congress and the fact that it captures both the outward behavior and the documented inner workings of Jefferson’s mind when it came to the substance of the Christian faith.

Thomas Jefferson’s orthodoxy wasn’t at all with what most would regard as doctrinally sound. While he believed that Jesus represented the greatest expositor of moral standards ever, Jefferson did not subscribe at all to His Deity.11

In a letter to Thomas B. Parker in 1819, he said:

my fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.12

But while his convictions pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ may have been questionable, he still saw religion as being a necessary component to the philosphical foundation a government had to be based on in order to define and defend an individual’s rights.

You see this in a letter he wrote to P.H. Wendover in 1813. Jefferson, referring to the discourses of a Mr. McCloud, says…

I feel my portion of indebtment to the reverend author for the distinguished learning, the logic and the eloquence with which has proved that religion, as well as reason, confirms that soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.13

In addition, while serving in the House of Burgesses, Thomas Jefferson worked alongside Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee to craft a resolution for the state of Virginia to set aside a day of fasting and prayer. He said

We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention.14

Later, he wrote that the reaction was like a “shock of electricity…”

We returned home, and in our several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the people on the 1st of June [actually at various times in June and July], to perform the ceremonies of the day, and to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day thro’ the whole colony was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him erect and solidly on his centre.15

The bottom line is that Thomas Jefferson saw in Christianity a reliable and needed foundation that, while it could not be coerced, could nevertheless support a legitimate assertion of individual rights and justify a national pursuit of independence.

8) The Testimony of John Adams on the Second Continental Congress

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson corresponded frequently after they had both retired from public life. In one particular letter, Adams and Jefferson were discussing a recent comment that had found its way into print that suggested that “Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Opulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, Support and preserve it.”16

In his letter to Jefferson, Adams disagreed and he articulated his position in part by saying…

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United…17

Among those that comprised the Second Continental Congress you had men that owned slaves and those that despised the slave trade. In addition, you had varying temperaments, vocations, as well as different philosophies when it came to loyalty to the crown.

Adams was part of the five-man team tasked with writing the “Declaration of Independence.” Whatever was getting ready to be sent to King George had to be both substantial and unanimous. But how do you unite a group of statesmen with such different backgrounds and perspectives given the risks that were involved?

As one who was there to witness it first hand, Adams could confidently say that it was because of the way each of the delegates could come together beneath the umbrella of their Christian faith that they were able to outline our country’s position with one voice.

9) The Impact of the Great Awakening
A Remarkable Incident
A remarkable incident at the beginning of the Revolutionary War testifies to the great evangelist’s hold on the imagination of ordinary Americans. In the fall of 1775, a New England force, commanded by Benedict Arnold (1741-1801), was recruited to invade Canada and capture Quebec. Arriving in Newburyport, Massachusetts, where Whitefield was buried in 1770, the officers descended into the church crypt, opened Whitefield’s coffin, removed his clerical collar and wristbands, cut them in pieces, and passed them out to the troops. The distribution of these Great Awakening amulets showed in its eerie way that men facing stress and anxiety wanted links to a preacher of a living God, not the latest London edition of Locke.21 One need look no farther for the reason evangelicalism demolished deism in eighteenth-century America.22

Anytime your relationship with Christ becomes defined more by a routine and an institution as opposed to a personal rapport with your King, your perspective on yourself and the world around you suffers. You see yourself exclusively in terms of your circumstances and the Purpose, Peace and Power that flows from an intentional focus on God and His Truth is overshadowed by the thought of who you are as opposed to Whose you are (Is 43:1; Matt 10:30-31; Phil 2:13; Rev 20:15).

From 1735-1743, preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were able to profoundly impact the colonies by proclaiming the Gospel in a way that emphasized the personal aspect of an authentic relationship with Christ. As opposed to sacraments and religious gestures, ministers like Whitefield and Edwards directed their listeners to the Gospels where it could be readily seen that it was a personal decision to believe in the empty tomb that secured one’s salvation.

The basic themes of the Great Awakening included:

  • All people are born sinners (Rom 3:23)
  • Sin without salvation will send a person to hell (Eph 2:8-9)
  • All people can be saved if they confess their sins to God, seek forgiveness and accept God’s grace (Rom 10:9-10)
  • All people can have a direct and emotional connection with God (Gal 3:28)
  • Religion shouldn’t be formal and institutionalized, but rather casual and personal (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6)18

While the essential doctrines being espoused may not have directly impacted the colonies’ collective dispostion towards Independence, between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of Americans were actively attending churches which were, “…being built at a headlong pace.”19 This was a result of the Great Awakening and it was this ever growing constituency of believers that provided the material and philosophical support for the Revolution because of the way they were now rethinking the manner in which their rights were, in fact, guaranteed by God and not dispensed by a monarch.

This change in their perspective was due in a large part to the way in which Revolutionary War era ministers were endorsing America’s resistance to the crown as a biblically sanctioned cause. And  because you had such a large majority of colonists now attending worship services, the result was a unified group of patriots that were linking arms across those borders previously defined by state sanctioned churches and vivid denominational differences.

Dr. James Hutson from the Library of Congress explains…

The plain fact is that, had American clergymen of all denominations not assured their pious countrymen, from the beginning of the conflict with Britain, that the resistance movement was right in God’s sight and had His blessing, it could not have been sustained and independence would not been achieved. Here is the fundamental, the indispensable, contribution of religion and its spokesmen to the coming of the American Revolution.20

10) Jefferson’s Approval of Federal Resources for Christian Worship Services

While serving as President, he made a point of attending church every Sunday and he made available Federal Buildings and the Marine Band for worship services. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states…

It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.23

Today’s interpretation of the “separation of church and state” does not square at all with Jefferson’s allocation of state resources for expressly Christian worship services. In order for his adminstrative acts to not conflict with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is logically mandated to rethink the notion that the First Amendment refers to the elimination of all reference to Scripture as a basis for our laws and political philosophy.

The issue was not the Authority of the Word of God. Rather, the issue of the separation of church and state was whether or not the government could impose a uniform approach to the Throne of God. It was the way that different states and their sanctioned churches could tax their constituents and take from those monies a portion to support a specific denomination, or the manner in which certain states required you to be a member of a particular church in order to run for public office. This was the sort of politically mandated spirituality that permeated 18th century America. The “separation of church and state” had nothing to do with whether or not you could legally kill your child before it was born or if it was legally feasible to redefine the institution of marriage.


11) “Jefferson, Thomas and Religion”, “Encyclopedia Virginia EMA, Virginia Humanities”, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/jefferson-thomas-and-religion/, accessed April 4, 2023

12) “Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, 15 May 1819”, “National Archives Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-14-02-0292, accessed April 4, 2023

13) “The Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson, the Third US President”, Thomas Jefferson, edited by Henry Augustine Washington, DigiCat, 2022, https://books.google.com/books?id=MS-cEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT2921&lpg=PT2921&dq=%22Religion,+as+well+as+reason,+confirms+the+soundness+of+those+principles+on+which+our+government+has+been+founded+and+its+rights+asserted.%22&source=bl&ots=jvCeLSmjCd&sig=ACfU3U1-4FsCJ2Gwx8s2xkAUHIojqOIvSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii0PWm2JD-AhXgmWoFHYOFCs0Q6AF6BAgnEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Religion%2C%20as%20well%20as%20reason%2C%20confirms%20the%20soundness%20of%20those%20principles%20on%20which%20our%20government%20has%20been%20founded%20and%20its%20rights%20asserted.%22&f=false, accessed April 4, 2023

14) “Resolution of the House of Burgesses Designating a Day of Fasting and Prayer, 24 May 1774”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0082, accessed April 4, 2023

15) “Thomas Jefferson and John Walker to the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Anne, [before 23 July 1774]”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0087, accessed April 4, 2023

16) “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed February 13, 2023

17) Ibid

18) “Great Awakening”, https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/great-awakening, accessed April 5, 2023

19) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html, accessed April 5, 2023

20) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p40

21) “Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People”, Jon Butler, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MS, London, England, 1990, p188

22) “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p35

23) Ibid, p91

Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities | Part I

When you set out to write a devotional based on our nation’s history, there’s a temptation to try and word things in a way that’s similar to the style you might use when you’re trying to make a point…

When I first sat down with my buddy who would go on to encourge me to write “The American Devotional Series,” he gave me some good counsel by saying, “Don’t argue. Just let the content speak for itself.”

In the end, it’s so much more than just the debate surrounding the Separation of Church and State. The amount of content and documentation that exists which points definitively to a population that understood, not only what was at stake, but how important it was to be basing their stance on something more than a political philosophy…

It’s overwhelming and utterly compelling.

You don’t commit High Treason nor take up arms against your sovereign based on a mere complaint. Our cause was preached from behind pulpits and not just proclaimed in the public square.

However critics and academics want to dismiss the Revolutionary War as a secular enterprise, vaguely supported with no real principle or ideal behind it apart from a collective disdain for King George, the documents and the commentary coming from that time period from the people who lived it, tell a much different story.

Here’s a list of some “Inconvenient Realities” that reveal those who insist on a humanistic foundation for the Revolutionary War and the United States in general as people who don’t have a point as much as they have a resolve to ignore what’s true in order to validate a world where they are their own Absolute.

Enjoy!


The Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – cerntainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.

You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion” website:

The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.

You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.

Below is a brief yet potent list:

Read more: Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities | Part I
 1) The Declaration of Independence

What qualified our statement to King George as a legitimate cause as opposed to a mere complaint is the way in which our Founders showed how his monarchy violated Divine Absolutes. However unjust or belligerent his adminstration may have been, it was the manner in which his rule restricted rights that were not his to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee – that is what gave our cause the Substance it needed to resonate as something that was True and not just preferred.

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.1

That is the starting point. The rights we have are God-given and the governments that are established by men to ensure those rights, but…

…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.2

We are founded on a Biblical Absolute and not a legal argument.

 2) Sixteen Congressional Proclations for Fasting

During the seven years we were at war with Great Britain, Congress proclaimed a National Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation 16 different times. You can view an image of those proclamations as they are preserved in the Library of Congress as well as a readable transcription by clicking here.

The verbiage of these proclamations is not conducive to an all-inclusive dynamic as far as it being something that accommodates all faiths. Rather, it specifies Christ and a need to seek His Forgiveness and Direction.

For example, a portion of the Proclamation from March 20, 1781 reads as follows:

The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third of May next, may be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness:

There’s a couple of things that are worth noticing: First, the commitee that was tasked with drafting this proclamation included James Madison who many want to believe to be a Deist. Someone with that kind of spiritual temperment would not be advocating Christ as “our blessed Savior.”

Secondly, to characterize Congress as a humanistic enterprise that placed no priority on the Reality and the Necessity of Divine Intervention requires a willful disregard for the repeated directives that came from their collective pen that recommended an intentional timeframe dedictated to an intensely focused and humble posturing before Jesus Christ.

In 1854, James Meacham, the Representative from Vermont, delivered a report pertaining to an issue involving the First Amendment. At one point, he said this:

Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain [the Christian] religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have strangled in its cradle. At the time of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation.3

In the same report, Meacham concluded by saying:

In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.4

 3) The Treaty of Paris

The first words of the Treaty that represented Great Britain’s surrender to America in 1783 were:

In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.5

 4) The Liberty Bell

The Liberty Bell was used to summon delegates to Pennslyvania Hall to discuss the matters of the day. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Catherine Ray in 1755, “Adieu, the Bell rings, and I must go among the Grave ones and talk Politicks.”6

It’s most famous tolling, however, was on July 8, 1776 when it was used to summon the townspeople to hear the public reading of the Declaration of Independence.7

Yet, up until that point, the bell wasn’t seen as an icon as much as it is today because of the way the text that’s inscribed on the bell was applied to the issue of slavery in 1844.

The inscription is Leviticus 25:10:

Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. (Lev 25:10 [KJV])

William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist and publisher of The Liberator, reprinted a poem written by H.R.H. Moore which represented the first documented use of the name, “The Liberty Bell.” Garrison saw it as an appropriate and effective way to combine the Biblical substance of the verse inscribed on the bell with the poetry of Moore which included the line, “Ring it, till the slave is free” and let the collective meaning serve as a rebuke against those who supported slavery.

In an article printed in Time Magazine, Dr Ben Carson tells of how when the body of Abraham Lincoln was laid in Independence Hall, he was placed in a manner where the Liberty Bell and the inscription was directly overhead. During the 20 hour public viewing, over 150,000 people paid their respects to the Great Emancipator.

In the article penned by Dr Carson, he concludes by saying:

Whether you’re black or white, Democrat or Republican, The Liberty Bell’s true story reminds Americans of all stripes that our nation’s history—and future—belongs to us all. It challenges us to tear down systems that hold us captive and honor the price great men and women have paid to cast and re-cast the American mold to form a more perfect union.8

The story of the Liberty Bell and the nation it represents possesses the profound and essential content that it does because of how it points to a Divine Absolute and not just a desired political climate.

 5) Washington’s General Orders

On May 2, 1778, General Washington issued the following General Orders:

The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains—those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them—It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendance set an Example to their men.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.9

George Washington made frequent references to the Power and Goodness of God throughout his career as the Commanding General of the Continental Army as well as his time as Commander in Chief.

The fact that he made a point of ensuring that Christian worship services were held throughout the army he commanded and made it clear that he expected his officers to lead by example by being both present and engaged reveals the priority he placed on the acknowledgement of the “Supreme Author of all Good.”

While enduring the hardship and lethal challenges of the winter spent at Valley Forge, Washington directed his troops to set aside a day for thanksgiving and fasting. On December 18, 1777, Reverend Israel Evans delivered one of the sermons and Washington later wrote him to thank him. In that letter, he said:

…it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavours to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all-wise and powerful Being, on whom alone our success depends.10


1) “Declaration of Independence”, America’s Founding Documents, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, accessed June 27, 2022

2) Ibid

3) “H. Rept. 33-124 – Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy. March 27, 1854. Ordered to be printed, Committee on the Judiciary. March 27, 1854”, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SERIALSET-00743_00_00-004-0124-0000/pdf/SERIALSET-00743_00_00-004-0124-0000.pdf, accessed April 1, 2023

4) Ibid (you can also see this report referenced on the online copy of the Congressional Record of the Proceedings and Debates of the 87th Congress in Volume 108 – Part 13 that covers the activity from August 20, 1962 to August 30, 1962. It’s on page 17597 and can be accessed by heading out to https://www.google.com/books/edition/Congressional_Record/dKHcR9moGwkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=1854

5) “Treaty of Paris (1783)”, “Milestone Documents”, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris, accessed April 1, 2023

6) “National Park Service”, “The Liberty Bell”, https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-libertybell.htm, accessed April 1, 2023

7) “Liberty Bell Tolls to Announce Declaration of Independence”, “History”, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/liberty-bell-tolls-to-announce-declaration-of-independence, accessed April 1, 2023

8) “Ben Carson: What You Don’t Know About The Liberty Bell”, Time Magazine, Dr. Ben Carson, August 24, 2016, https://time.com/4464934/ben-carson-liberty-bell-history/, accessed April 2, 2023

9) “General Orders, 2 May 1778, George Washington, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-15-02-0016, accessed March 7, 2023

10) “The Writings of George Washington, Volume V”, Jared Sparks, Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf & Hilliard, Gray and Company, Boston, 1834, https://books.google.com/books?id=UatV3YPhGVAC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq, accessed April 2, 2023

Separation of Church and State | Part II

Consider for a moment the questions we’ve asked thus far:

  • What is the Common Book of Prayer?
  • What is a Puritan?
  • Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”
  • How many times did Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation?

The first two questions outline the way in which the Anglican Church was replacing the “Lord’s Prayer” with the “Common Book of Prayer” along with several other directives that positioned the monarchy over the Trinity. This lead to the Puritans wanting to “purify” the doctrine espoused by the Church of England and return to a biblically based approach to one’s relationship with Christ.

By the 1700s, the “Act of Uniformity” had been expanded to include mandates pertaining to church government – something very beligerent in the mind of a Presbyterian who subscribed to a Scriptural approach to elders and deacons as they are described in the New Testament.

Moreover, part of the “Common Book of Prayer” included prayers that were to be made for the king, which implied a form of political support regardless of that monarch’s character or conduct.1

This is what was meant by the “separation of church and state.”

The delegates that formed the Constitutional Convention were not attempting to facilitate a potentially godless society with the First Amendment. Rather, they were honoring the Authority of God’s Word by placing a limitation on the way the government could dictate the manner of your worship.

Congress could not tell you how to pray or fine you for not attending church on Sundays. There would be no legislation that dictated how a church’s government was to be structured.

But while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.

In a 2019 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases. They said that context is “a factor of considerable importance” and that the “…words complained of should not be fixed by technical, linguistically-precise dictionary definitions divorced from the context in which the statement was made. Nor should individual words be removed from their context and defined in isolation, before reconnecting them to the rest of the statement.2

If that ruling is to apply to the debate surrounding the separation of church and state, then you’re obligated to conclude the the Founding Fathers were not looking to limit Christianity’s influence on government as much as they were resolved to limit government’s influence on Christianity.

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which was designed to ensure the militant Muslims that were preying on American ships that the US was not planning on invading Jerusalem. Part of that Treaty says:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).

Some will take the statement, “…America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” to mean that the Declaration of Independence represents nothing more than a token acknowledgement of God and the sixteen Congressional proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting had no specific reference to Christ.

That’s just not the case.

Adams himself said:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.3

In 1789, James Madison, the architect behind the Bill of Rights, wrote a “Memonstrance and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.” His goal was to discourage the use of tax dollars to financially support teachers of the Christian religion.

His point wasn’t to discredit Christianity or minimize its place in the public square. Again, it was a concerted resolve to avoid the sins of the Church of England in the way government was used to obligate people to process and revere God in a specific way, if they were to even worship God at all.

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.4

Again, while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.

While Madison is brilliant in his defense of not using public funds to finance religious education, bear in mind he was part of the group of men that wrote the following Congressional Proclamation:

The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the thrid of May next, beay be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous sidpleasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness5

The Separation of Church and State was never designed to be used as a way to normalize Homosexuality or justify Partial Birth Abortion. The government of the United States, while it will not dictate how or to whom you pray, it will not be redefined in a way that removes the Divine Absolute that is both its heritage and its Foundation.

 

1. “Variations in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer”, “The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England (1662)”, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm, accessed June 13, 2023

2. “Supreme Court emphasizes importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases”, https://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2019/04/11/supreme-court-emphasises-importance-of-context-in-determining-meaning-in-defamation-cases/, Herbert Smith Freehills, April 11, 2019, accessed November 5, 2022

3. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed November 5, 2022

4. “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163, accessed June 13, 2023

5. To see an image of the Proclamation as its preserved in the Library of Congress, click here.

Separation of Church and State | Part I

Nine times out of ten, when you hear someone play the “Separation of Church and State” card, they’re doing so believing that they’ve insulated themselves from having to defend their platform simply by declaring your position an illegal and inappropratiate assertion of your belief system…

Abortion.

Homosexuality.

It can be anything that is addressed specifically in Scripture. However clarifying the Bible can be in defining the difference between right and wrong, it is an unwelcome Presence in the mind of somone who prefers to declare themselves as their own moral absolute.

“You can’t force your beliefs on me…”

“Not everyone feels that way…”

(sarcastically) “You ever hear of the ‘Separation of Church and State?'”

It’s a signature tactic of the person who has something to hide as opposed to having something to say. By posing as a victim, they can sidestep any direct line of questioning because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and intolerant.

It’s brilliant.

There are several things wrong with their argument, though.

First of all, from a historical standpoint, they’re taking that phrase completely out of context and applying it in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage or taking the life of your baby before it’s born.

Secondly, what they’re attempting to do is philosophically impossible. Every government that’s ever been conceived by human kind has been based on a “church” of some sort. It’s here where you can see the true purpose of those who are asserting the “separation…” argument in that they’re not trying to “separate” anything as much as they’re attempting to establish a new god, a new church and a new morality.

But how do you refute what they’re saying? How can you “argue” if they’ve secured themselves behind a wall reinforced by the kind of pity that is due to someone who’s been wounded? How do you make your point if they’re not willing to listen and instead are just waiting for you to stop talking so they can proceed in telling you how intolerant you are?

What we’re going to do is unpack all this by posing a couple of questions that you can ask the person who’s pointing their philosophical pistol at you and compel them to make your point for you with the responses they’re logically obligated to give.

Here we go…

What is the Common Book of Prayer?

It’s part of the legislative package passed by Parliament in 1558 as part of the “Act of Uniformity” which Queen Elizabeth initiated as part of relieving the tension between Catholics and Protestants. It positioned her as the head of the church and imposed a collection of state-sanctioned directives that dictated the way you were to pray, how you were to condut a church service and even imposed a fine should you decide to not attend church on any given Sunday.1

What is a Puritan?

A Puritan is someone who wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church – the church created by Henry the VIII and then later legally mandated by his daughter Queen Elizabeth with the Act of Uniformity. They wanted to distance themselves from a doctrine that was dictated by the crown and instead based on the Authority of God’s Word. The Puritans were among the first settlers of the New World along with the Pilgrims who didn’t want to “purify” the Church of England as much as they wanted to remove themselves completely from having to answer to any government interference with one’s faith.

Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”

In the aftermath of the Great Awakening, 75-80% of the colonies were actively involved in church.2 Preachers like George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards had successfully re-introduced the Truth of how one’s relationship with Christ was not facilitated by a liturgy or a religious institution, but was instead based solely on a personal decision to follow Him.

With that awareness came a new perspective on how one’s rights were not a king’s to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee.

It wasn’t just “taxation without representation,” it was the way the motherland was attempting to control church government, the way in which you to pray (which included a mandate to swear allegiance to the king) and a directive to ordain ministers, not according to the New Testament, but according to a format approved by the Church of England.

Many Americans were quoted as saying, “We have no governor but Jesus Christ.”3

This is why many redcoats and Englishmen were prone to refer to the Revolution as a Presbyterian Rebellion.4

How many times to Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation during the Revolutionary War?

Sixteen. And these were not generic “moments of silence.” These were specific admonishments to appeal to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and wisdom in the way the United States was to prosecute its war with England.5

Bear in mind too that the verbiage of these Proclamations were written by many who would later serve in the Constitutional Convention.

Tomorrow…Part II

1. “The Act of Uniformity” was conceived in 1558 and passed by Parliament in 1559. Its purpose was to regularize prayer, worship and the administration of sacraments in the Church of England. In addition, all persons had to attend Anglican worship services once a week or be fined 12 pence which amounted to about three days wages. (“Act of Uniformity 1558”, “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558, accessed May 20, 2023)

In 1662, the scope of “The Act of Uniformity” was enhanced to include the mandate that all ministers be ordained according to an Episcopal format and anyone who held an office within the church was to swear allegiance to the monarchy. (“Act of Uniformity 1662” “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1662, accessed May 20, 2023 | “Act of Uniformity”, “Encyclopedia.com”, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/act-uniformity, accessed May 20, 2023

2. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html, accessed April 5, 2023

3. “Directory of National Biography, Vol XXV”, Harris – Henry I, Smith, Elder and Company, London, 1891, p68 (also read “The Black Robe Regiment” to learn more about the Presbyterian element that was perceived by the British)

4. “Public Statutes at large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845, Volume VI”, “https://books.google.com/books?id=Opt0L-PDdPAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22that+the+duties+arising+and+due+to+the+United+States+upon+certain+stereotype+plates%22&source=bl&ots=p2xVUkIfub&sig=ACfU3U3N9AeyAcd_E0QqZfiXJlHQXbKGTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq8oSY0__9AhV6mWoFHduzBy0Q6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20duties%20arising%20and%20due%20to%20the%20United%20States%20upon%20certain%20stereotype%20plates%22&f=false”, accessed March 28, 2023

5. To read a list of all sixteen proclamations as they’re documented in the Library of Congress, head out to http://muscularchristianityonline.com/forum/the-finish-line/