About these ads

Attempting to obey God and follow Jesus Christ our Lord

freedom

The Power of Generosity

Yesterday, my pastor continued the series, Into the Wild, with a message titled, The Power of Generosity. The text for the message was taken from Genesis 13:1-18, and continued with the story of Abram on his adventure Into the Wild, as he walked in obedience to the Lord’s calling. In Abram’s obedience, the Lord had greatly blessed him, so much in fact, that his herdsmen, and Lot’s herdsmen, had begun to argue about having enough pastureland to graze all of their livestock. Rather than focus on He who had blessed them, the herdsmen had begun to fixate on the blessing.

Instead of allowing disputes to ensue, Abram moved in faith, and acted in abundant generosity. Though he was the patriarch of the family, and had every right to claim all that had been given unto him, he treated Lot as his equal, and gave him first choice of the land before them as they were to part company so that the land could better support all of their livestock. Lot chose what appeared to be the better of the two directions, yet Abram seemed unfazed by his decision. He recognized that the God who had so abundantly blessed he and his family, was not limited in how He might bring forth the promised blessings.

Abram’s generosity models how we ought to live. Generosity is one of the ways that we are most able to live freely before God. When we are generous, we are choosing to live our life unrestrained, for Him. As we release things to God, we make room for the miraculous.

The power to change,The Power of Generosity

a heart full of pride;

sincere humbling,

grace giving resides.

A generous heart,

gathers and unites;

selfishness scatters,

makes people take flight.

Such hearts are humble,

they give God control;

releasing the reigns,

make serving their goal.

Perspective through Him,

hearts that understand;

all His ways are best,

so trust in His plan.

Dear Heavenly Father, thank You that You have given us numerous examples of how to live generously, so that we may fully understand and know the freedom that comes when we give all unto You. Thank You that generosity is not just about our finances, but it is about who we are, being all in for You – our time, our trust, our encouragement, our willingness to do whatever You ask. Forgive us for withholding any part of ourselves or our resources from You, and help us to understand how to release all unto You. May we make room for the miraculous in our lives. Let us live our lives in love, as You love us, and may many come to know the generous and loving God You are, as a result. May hearts be turned and lives be changed. Be glorified, O God. Amen.

© Shannon Elizabeth Moreno and Revelations in Writing, May 2011 – present.

He who refreshes others will himself be refreshed. – Proverbs 11:25

About these ads

Has Mr. Obama had an Epiphany?

February 6, 2014|11:09 am

President Barack Obama:

“Today we profess the principles we know to be true,” he said. “We know that each of us is wonderfully made in the image of God. We therefore believe in the inherent dignity of every human being – dignity that no earthly power can take away. And central to that dignity is freedom of religion – the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith if they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do this free from persecution and fear.”

I am so thankful to hear President Obama make this statement on religious freedom! It seems that he has had an epiphany and I wonder when he will instruct his justice department to withdraw their persecution and prosecution of people of faith here who think that being forced to pay for abortions or provide services for those who promote homosexuality is a violation of their beliefs!

Obama declared:

“Promoting religious freedom is a key objective of U.S. foreign policy, and I’m proud that no nation on Earth does more to stand up for the freedom of religion around the world than the United States of America.”

This should be welcome news to the countries in which his administration has insisted that they must approve abortion in order to receive aid!

Mr.Obama also said:
Some of the reasons to promote religious freedom is when they protect the religious freedom of their citizens, this, in turn, helps U.S. national security.

“History shows,” he said, “that nations that uphold the rights of their people, including freedom of religion, are ultimately more just, more peaceful and more successful. Nations that do not uphold these rights, sow the bitters seeds of instability and violence and extremism. So freedom of religion matters to our national security.”

Indeed, it does seem that Mr. Obama sees clearly here! Perhaps we will see him speaking forcefully against the persecution of Christians that is happening in the Middle East and Africa right now and we will see him meeting with members of the group’s being killed and using his meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood to call them to account for the violence that the are taking part in and promoting!

After all Mr. Obama makes that point:

“Nations that do not protect religious freedom”, he added, will not be successful: “No society can truly succeed unless it guarantees the rights of all of its peoples, including religious minorities.”

Mr. Obama also said:
“We will keep standing for religious freedom around the world. That includes, by the way, opposing blasphemy and defamation of religion measures, which are promoted sometimes as an expression of religion, but in fact, can all too often be used to suppress religious minorities.”

To this I say amen and amen!!!! Hopefully, he will inform the U.N that any rule that is aimed at preventing the blasphemy of any religion will not be approved by this country!

God works in amazing ways, and perhaps He truly has worked through Mr. Obama to make us realize what a wonderful privilege and opportunity we have in this country!!! As for the words spoken by Mr. Obama at the prayer breakfast, we will have to wait and see if they are truly an epiphany on his part and he believes them himself, or if they are just words intended to placate his detractors! After all words without action are nothing more than empty air!!


JAN. 16 – Religious Freedom Day ‘- Almighty God hath created the mind free’ Thomas Jefferson

 

American Minute by Bill Federer
“Each year on JANUARY 16, we celebrate Religious Freedom Day in commemoration of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,”-wrote President George W. Bush in his 2003 Proclamation.

Passed in 1786, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and commemorated on his tombstone.

Did Jefferson intend to limit the public religious expression of students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations and communities?


In his original 1777 draft of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness,

and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone….”

President Thomas Jefferson explained in his Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.

I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson explained to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [10th Amendment]…”

Jefferson continued:

“Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government…

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines…

Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”

In 1776, a year before Jefferson drafted his Statute, another Virginian, George Mason, drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later revised by James Madison and referred to in his Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785:

“Religion, or the duty we owe to our CREATOR, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;

and, therefore, that all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,

and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other.”

James Madison made a journal entry, June 12, 1788:

“There is not a shadow of right in the general government to inter-meddle with religion…The subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it.”

On June 7, 1789, James Madison introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress with the wording:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship.”

James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.


Justice Joseph Story wrote in hisCommentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Chapter XLIV, “Amendments to the Constitution,” Section 991:

“The real object of the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”

Samuel Chase, who had been appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, wrote in the Maryland case of Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799:

“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

FOR A SHORT HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, READ BELOW:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens admitted in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985:

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith.”

When the country began, religious liberty was under each individual Colony’s jurisdiction.

In the decision Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote:

“Groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England…passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.”

Like dropping a pebble in a pond and the ripples go out, States began to expand religious liberty from the particular Christian denomination that founded each colony to all Protestants, then to Catholics, then to liberal Christian denominations, then to Jews, then to monotheists, then to polytheists.

This process was then continued by the Federal Government to expand “religious” liberty to atheists, pagans, occultic, and eventually to religions which historically have been violently ANTI-Judeo-Christian.

After the Constitution, the States ratified the First Amendment, as well as all Ten Amendments, specifically to limit the new Federal government’s power:

“CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…”

The word “Congress” meant the Federal Congress.

“Shall make no law” meant the Federal Congress could not introduce, debate, vote on or send to the President any bill respecting an establishment of religion.

The word “respecting” meant “concerning” or “pertaining to.”

It was simply telling the Federal government “HANDS OFF” all religious issues.

When anything regarding religion came before the Federal government, the response was to be that it had no jurisdiction to decide anything on that issue, neither for nor against.

“Establishment” did not mean “acknowledgment.”

“Establishment” did not mean believing in Christianity or believing in God.

Establishment was a clearly understood term.

It meant setting up one particular Christian denomination as the official denomination.

With varying levels of official state endorsement and favoritism, countries typically had some kind of established Church:

England had established the Anglican Church;
Sweden had established the Lutheran Church;
Scotland had established the Church of Scotland;
Holland had established the Dutch Reformed Church;
Russia had established the Russian Orthodox Church;
Serbia had established the Serbian Orthodox Church;
Romania had established the Romanian Orthodox Church;
Greece had established the Greek Orthodox Church;
Bulgaria had established the Bulgarian Orthodox Church;
Finland had established the Finnish Orthodox Church;
Ethiopia had established the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church;
Italy, Spain, France, Poland, Austria, Mexico, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Vatican City had established the Roman Catholic Church; and
Switzerland had established Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances.

The attitude of the original 13 States was that they did not want the new Federal Government to follow the pattern of most Western nations and pick one denomination with its headquarters in the Capitol.

Allegorically, they did not want a Federal Walmart Church to come into town and put out of business their individual State “mom & pop department store” denominations.

To make the purpose of the First Amendment unquestionably clear, they went on to state that the Federal Congress could not make a law which prohibited “THE FREE EXERCISE” of religion.

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“Founding Fathers…enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment…

The purpose of that Amendment was to protect religion from the interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, ‘the free exercise of religion.'”

Like dealing a deck of cards in a card game, the States dealt to the Federal Government jurisdiction over a few things, like providing for the common defense and regulating interstate commerce, but the rest of the cards were held by the States.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in hisCommentaries on the Constitution, 1833:

“The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State Governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State Constitutions.”

Just as today some States allow minors to consume alcohol and other States do not;
some States allow the selling of marijuana and others do not;
some States have smoking bans and others do not;
some States allow gambling and others do not, and
some States allow prostitution (Nevada and formerly Rhode Island) and the rest do not;
at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified some States allowed more religious freedom, such as Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and other States, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, did not.

But it was up to the people in each State to decide.

Congressman James Meacham of Vermont gave a House Judiciary Committee report, March 27, 1854:

“At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State – certainly ten of the thirteen – provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government.”

When did things change?

Charles Darwin theorized that species could evolve.

This inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve.

This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the case precedent method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 with the original intent to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South.

Activist Justices quickly began to use the 14th Amendment very creatively to take jurisdiction away from the States over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

The freedom of religion was still under each individual State’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR was elected President four times, which led to the 22nd Amendment being passed to limit all future Presidents to only two terms.

During his 12 years in office, FDR concentrated power in the Federal Government to an unprecedented degree.

Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court in 1937.

Justice Hugo Black concentrated power in the Federal government by taking jurisdiction over religion away from each State.

He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a State” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.”

He conveniently ignored innumerable references to and requirements in the various State Constitutions regarding religion.

In a word, he took the handcuffs off the Federal government and placed them on the States.

After this, Federal Courts began evolving the definition of “religion” away from that originally used by George Mason and James Madison in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776:

“Religion…the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it.”

This progression can be seen in several cases.

“ETHICAL” = RELIGION

In 1957, the IRS denied tax-exempt status to an “ethical society” stating it did not qualify as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt “church” or “religious society.”

The case went to the Supreme Court, where Justice Warren Burger wrote in Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (1957):

“We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner [The Washington Ethical Society] qualifies as ‘a religious corporation or society’…

It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the ‘no-establishment’ clause of the First Amendment.”

“SECULAR HUMANISM” = RELIGION

In 1961, Roy Torcaso wanted to be a notary public in Maryland, but did not want to make “a declaration of belief in the existence of God,” as required by Maryland’s State Constitution, Article 37.

In the Supreme Court case Torcaso v Watkins (1961), Justice Hugo Black included a footnote which has been cited authoritatively in subsequent cases:

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Justice Scalia wrote in Edwards v. Aguillard(1987):

“In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961), we did indeed refer to ‘SECULAR HUMANISM’ as a ‘religio[n].'”

“A SINCERE AND MEANINGFUL BELIEF” = RELIGION

During the Vietnam War, Mr. Seeger said he could not affirm or deny the existence of a Supreme Being and wanted to be a draft-dodger, claiming to be a conscientious objector under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Section 6(j) that allowed exemptions for “religious training and belief.”

In United States v Seeger, (1965), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark stated:

“The test of religious belief within the meaning in Section 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption.”

“BELIEFS ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG” = RELIGION

Another draft-dodger case involved Elliot Welsh. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Welsh v. United States (1970), decided that belief in a “deity” is not necessary to be “religious”:

“Having decided that all religious conscientious objectors were entitled to the exemption, we faced the more serious problem of determining which beliefs were ‘religious’ within the meaning of the statute…

Determining whether the registrant’s beliefs are religious is whether these beliefs play the role of religion and function as a religion in the registrant’s life…

Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a ‘religious’ conscientious objector exemption under Section 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to the war from traditional religious convictions…

We think it clear that the beliefs which prompted his objection occupy the same place in his life as the belief in a traditional deity holds in the lives of his friends, the Quakers…

A registrant’s conscientious objection to all war is ‘religious’ within the meaning Section 6(j) if this opposition stems from the registrant’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.”

“ATHEISM” = RELIGION

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, (W.D. WI) decision inKaufman v. McCaughtry, August 19, 2005, stated:

“A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being…Atheism may be considered…religion… ‘Atheism is indeed a form of religion…’

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment…

The Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones…

Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

Overlooking that the Constitution is only to be changed by Amendments voted in by the majority of the people, the Supreme Court admitted in Wallace v Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 1985) that the original meaning of the First Amendment was modified “in the crucible of litigation,” a term not mentioned in the Constitution:

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the consciences of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.

But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

The Federal Courts gradually gave the word “religion” a new definition which included “ethical,” “secular humanism,” “a sincere and meaningful belief,”  “beliefs about right and wrong,” and “atheism.”

Under this new definition, so as not to prefer one “religion” over another, Federal Courts have prohibited God, which, ironically, has effectively established the religion of atheism in the exact the way the First Amendment was intended to prohibit.

This was warned against by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his dissent in Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963:

“The state may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe’…

Refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

Ronald Reagan referred to this decision in a radio address, February 25, 1984:

“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.

Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson, W.D. Va,. 1983:

“The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion. When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Q & A Session, October 13, 1983:

“The First Amendment has been twisted to the point that freedom of religion is in danger of becoming freedom from religion.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Ceremony for Prayer in Schools, September 25, 1982:

“In the last two decades we’ve experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she’d never left Wonderland.

We’re told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly, this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray…

To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage.”

Is it just a coincidence that the ACLU’s agenda is similar to the Communist agenda read into the Congressional Record, January 10, 1963 by Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., of Florida (Vol 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, pp. A34-A35):

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.'”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.”

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich stated inACLU v Mercer County, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 20, 2005:

“The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.

The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some case, accommodation of religion.”

The Supreme Court stated in Lynch v Donnelly, 1984:

“The Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.'”

Associate Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court caseWallace v. Jafree, 1985, dissent, 472 U. S., 38, 99:

“The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history…The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years…

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation…Recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers…

But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in Engle v Vitale, 1962, dissent:

“The Court…is not aided…by the…invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCullum v Board of Education, it stated:

“Rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech.”

Justice William O’Douglas wrote inZorach v Clausen, 1952:

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State…

We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence…

We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1984:

“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”

Are anti-faith groups using the evolved interpretation of the First Amendment to take away the liberties which the original First Amendment was intended to guarantee?

Dwight Eisenhower is quoted in the TIME Magazine article, “Eisenhower on Communism,” October 13, 1952:

“The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.

A group – like the Communist conspiracy – dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”

Ronald Reagan worded it differently on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982:

“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”

Ronald Reagan stated at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, August 23, 1984:

“The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?”

Did Jefferson intend to outlaw the acknowledgment of God and limit students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations, and communities from public religious expression?

In light of mandates in President’s Healthcare law which forces individuals to violate their religious beliefs or be subject to “temporal punishments” for non-compliance, it is incumbent upon Americans to read again the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion…

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical…

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity…unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which…he has a natural right…

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion…is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own…

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man…shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief,

but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”

Ronald Reagan addressed the Alabama State Legislature, March 15, 1982:

“The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

‘To destroy us…our enemies must first seduce us from the house of God’ -Yale President Timothy Dwight

 

American Minute with Bill Federer
A grandson of Princeton president Jonathan Edwards, he could read at age 4 and entered Yale at 13.He was a chaplain in the Continental Army until his father died.

Then, as the eldest of 13 children, he worked the family farm to pay off debts.

He served in Massachusetts’ first State Legislature.

His name was Timothy Dwight IV, and he died JANUARY 11, 1817.


He was Yale’s 8th president, 1795 to 1817.

In his 22 years at Yale, he created Departments of Chemistry, Geology, Law, and Medicine.

He also founded Andover Theological Seminary.

Timothy Dwight pioneered women’s education, and was critical of slavery and encroachment on Indian lands.

He befriended Henry Opukahaia, the first Hawaiian convert to Christianity, which led to missionaries sailing to the Islands.

During his administration, Yale grew from 110 to 313 students, with one of his students, Samuel Morse, inventing the telegraph.

Originally a Puritan college, Yale students had become enamored with “French infidelity” and the deistic “cult of reason.”

Dwight met with students and answered their questions on faith.

By the time of his death, JANUARY 11, 1817, a third of the graduates were professing Christians, and 30 entered the ministry.

On July 4, 1798, Timothy Dwight gave an address in New Haven titled “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis.”

In this address, he explained how Voltaire’s atheism inspired the French Revolution and it’s Reign of Terror, 1793-1794, where 40,000 people were beheaded and 300,000 were butchered in the Vendee:

“About the year 1728, Voltaire, so celebrated for his wit and brilliancy and not less distinguished for his hatred of Christianity and his abandonment of principle, formed a systematical design to destroy Christianity and to introduce in its stead a general diffusion of irreligion and atheism.

For this purpose he associated with himself Frederick the II, king of Prussia, and Mess. D’Alembert and Diderot, the principal compilers of the Encyclopedie, all men of talents, atheists and in the like manner abandoned.

The principle parts of this system were:

1. The compilation of the Encyclopedie: in which with great art and insidiousness the doctrines of … Christian theology were rendered absurd and ridiculous; and the mind of the reader was insensibly steeled against conviction and duty.

2. The overthrow of the religious orders in Catholic countries, a step essentially necessary to the destruction of the religion professed in those countries.

3. The establishment of a sect of philosophists to serve, it is presumed as a conclave, a rallying point, for all their followers.

4. The appropriation to themselves, and their disciples, of the places and honors of members of the French Academy, the most respectable literary society in France, and always considered as containing none but men of prime learning and talents.

In this way they designed to hold out themselves and their friends as the only persons of great literary and intellectual distinction in that country, and to dictate all literary opinions to the nation.

5. The fabrication of books of all kinds against Christianity, especially such as excite doubt and generate contempt and derision.

Of these they issued by themselves and their friends who early became numerous, an immense number; so printed as to be purchased for little or nothing, and so written as to catch the feelings, and steal upon the approbation, of every class of men.


6. The formation of a secret Academy, of which Voltaire was the standing president, and in which books were formed, altered, forged, imputed as posthumous to deceased writers of reputation, and sent abroad with the weight of their names.

These were printed and circulated at the lowest price through all classes of men in an uninterrupted succession, and through every part of the kingdom.”


Timothy Dwight continued:

“In societies of Illuminati…the being of God was denied and ridiculed….

The possession of property was pronounced robbery.

Chastity and natural affection were declared to be nothing more than groundless prejudices.

Adultery, assassination, poisoning, and other crimes of the like infernal nature, were taught as lawful…provided the end was good….

The good ends proposed by the Illuminati…are the overthrow of religion, government, and human society, civil and domestic.

These they pronounce to be so good that murder, butchery, and war, however extended and dreadful, are declared by them to be completely justifiable…

The means…were…the education of youth…every unprincipled civil officer…every abandoned clergyman…books replete with infidelity, irreligion, immorality, and obscenity…

Where religion prevails, Illumination cannot make disciples, a French directory cannot govern, a nation cannot be made slaves, nor villains, nor atheists, nor beasts.

To destroy us therefore, in this dreadful sense, our enemies must first destroy our Sabbath and seduce us from the house of God…”

Timothy Dwight concluded:

“Religion and liberty are the meat and the drink of the body politic.

Withdraw one of them and in languishes, consumes, and dies.

If indifference…becomes the prevailing character of a people…their motives to vigorous defense is lost, and the hopes of their enemies are proportionally increased…

Without religion we may possibly retain the freedom of savages, bears, and wolves, but not the freedom of New England.

If our religion were gone, our state of society would perish with it and nothing would be left which would be worth defending.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

But for a Word

This is a repost of a post that I put up a year ago, but it is still relevant and I decided that it was worth reposting!

In the post I put up previously about the founding Father’s  there was something that struck me! Roger Sherman stated:

 There is one amendment proposed by the convention of South Carolina respecting religious tests, by inserting the word other, between the words no and religious in that article, which is an ingenious thought, and had that word been inserted, it would probably have prevented any objection on that head. But it may be considered as a clerical omission and be inserted without calling a convention; as it now stands the effect will be the same”

This was written in his second letter to the New Haven Gazette on the 25th of December 1788. It made me wonder how much history would have changed if that word, other, had been inserted in between the words no and religious? 

Article. VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

From the Congressional Debates of 1789, we have this discussion on Religious Amendments:

August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)

[House of Representatives]

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:

(Religious Reference)

Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert ‘no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.

Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the sentence.

Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had ‘no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.’

Mr. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.

Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

Mr. MADISON thought, if the word ‘National’ was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word ‘National’ was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.

Mr. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman’s motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.

Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words single ‘no National religion shall be established by law’, did not apply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE’s motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it.(5)

(End of Religious Reference)

I find it odd that people can read the amendment and clearly understand that the government is not allowed to infringe on the rights of the press, and yet as the same time ignore the statement that this same government is forbidden from infringing upon the rights of the people to practice their religion and to assemble peaceably as they will.

ARTICLE THE THIRD.

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

I also find it odd that those we elect to serve us and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of American, assume that their role is instead to change that very document into something that suits their ideas of what should be. We have a responsibility to those who come after us to teach them the true meaning of what the oath of affirmation says.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

We have strayed very far from our beginnings, so far that children today seem to believe that our President serves as a Monarch, instead as part of a trinity of three equal branches of government with each having their own established jobs to do. We have let Presidents take power by way of Presidential Signings that has no real basis in law, and yet they use this power to force their will upon the people even when the people who elected them cry out for change. Our current discussion of limiting the rights of the people is another power grab that goes totally against the Constitution and knowing it, our leaders intend to do all they can to steal this right away from the people. This was not unforeseen by those very writers of the Constitution:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. GERRY: This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures, with respect to a militia as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

These gentlemen knew what it was like to be under an oppressive government. They understood the probability that there would come a time when our government no longer served the people but instead used force to impose their will upon them. They wanted to prevent this from happening.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In a government bottomed on the will of all, the…liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Read more at

John Petrie’s Collection of

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

Enhanced by Zemanta

GREED and the GOSPEL – two threads in history – and American Indians

 American Minute by Bill Federer
 GREED and the GOSPEL are two threads that run through the past 2,000 years.Those motivated by GREED took land from Indians; held slaves; were East India Tea Company merchants who imported opium into China; or hung signs “Help Wanted-No Irish Need Apply”; or voted for candidates promising financial security even though they spread immorality and disregard for human life.


Those motivated by the GOSPEL donated money, food and clothes, opened orphanages andmedical clinics, dug wells in native villages, fought to abolish slavery, founded hospitals, took in homeless, dispensed emergency aid, inoculated children, taught farming techniques, visited those in prison, provided literacy programs and disaster relief.

Such were:

Scottish Missionary to Nigeria Mary Slessor who promoted women’s rights and ending twin killing;

Baptist Missionary Lottie Moon, who helped famine victims in China;


Scottish Missionary to the Congo David Livingstone who worked to end the Muslim slave trade;

Adoniram Judson, missionary to Burma, who created a Burmese-English Dictionary;

Missionary to India William Carey, who helped end the practice of ‘sati’ – the burning widows on their husband’s ashes;


George Muller, who founded orphanages in the slums of England;

Missionary to China Gladys Aylward, who helped end the binding of little girls’ feet;

Hudson Taylor, who was a missionary and physician in China;

Irish missionary Amy Carmichael, who worked with orphans in India;


Olympic athlete Eric Liddell, who was a missionary and teacher in North China;

Jake DeShazer, who was a prisoner-of-war turned missionary to Japan;

Nate Saint and Jim Elliot, who were missionary martyrs to Ecuador’s Auca Indians;


and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who said:

“I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, this is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus.”


These spread Judeo-Christian ideals like ‘women and children first,’ philanthropy, charity, volunteerism, civil rights, and tolerance.

Though conquistadors unfortunately lusted for gold, they were followed by sincere missionaries like Bartolome’ de Las Casas, who ministered to native peoples.

American Indians were caught in the struggle between GREED and the GOSPEL.


Many Indians sided with the French against the British during the French and Indian War. When the French lost, the Indians lost land.

Many Indians sided with the British during the Revolutionary War as Britain limited colonial westward expansion in 1763. When the British lost, Indians lost more land. (Treaty of Greenville, 1795)


Many Indians sided with the British during the War of 1812. When the British lost, Indians lost more land. (Treaty of Fort Jackson, 1814)

Gold was discovered in Georgia and settlers rushed in. A Democrat controlled Congress hurriedly passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed by a Democrat President. Four thousand Cherokee died in their forced march to Oklahoma. (Treaty of Fort Armstrong, 1832; Treaty of Echota, 1835)

Some Indians sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. When the South lost, Indians lost more land.


During America’s history, there were well-intentioned missionaries motivated by the GOSPEL: John Elliott, Pierre Marquette, David Brainerd, Francis Makemie, John Stewart, Marcus Whitman, and Hiram Bingham.

On April 26, 1802, President Jefferson extended a 1787 act of Congress in which special lands were designated:

“For the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.”


After the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson asked Congress to ratify a treaty with the Kaskaskia Tribe, negotiated by William Henry Harrison-the future 9th President. The Kaskaskia Treaty, DECEMBER 3, 1803, stated:

“And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached,

the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature,

and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”


In 1806 and 1807, two similar treaties were made with the Wyandotte and Cherokee tribes.

President Jackson stated in a Message to Congress, January 20, 1830:

“According to the terms of an agreement between the United States and the United Society of Christian Indians the latter have a claim to an annuity of $400…”


President Jackson commented in his 2nd Annual Message, December 6, 1830:

“The Indians…gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.”


In the 1850’s, the territory of the Five Civilized Tribes in the eastern Oklahoma had missions, schools and academies:Presbyterians’ Dwight Mission (Cherokee, 1820, 1828);
Chuala Female Academy (Choctaw, 1842);
Tullahassee Manual Labor Boarding School (Cherokee, 1848);
Congregational-American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions’s Wheelock Academy (Choctaw, 1832);
Methodist Episcopal Church’s Quapaw Mission (1843); and
Bloomfield Academy for Chickasaw Females (1852).

President Lincoln stated in his 3rd Annual Message, December 3, 1863:

“It is hoped that the treaties will result in…permanent friendly relations with such of these tribes…

Duty to these wards of the Government demand our anxious and constant attention to their material well-being, to their progress in the arts of civilization, and, above all, to that moral training which under the blessing of Divine Providence will confer upon them the elevated and sanctifying influences, hopes and consolations, of the Christian faith.”

In 1869, the Board of Indian Commissioners noted in its annual report: “the religion of our blessed Savior is…the most effective agent for the civilization of any people.”

President Grant stated in his First Annual Message, December 6, 1869:

“I have attempted a new policy toward these wards of the nation…

The Society of Friends is well known as having succeeded in living in peace with the Indians in the early settlement of Pennsylvania…

They are known for their opposition to all strife, violence, and war, and are generally noted for their strict integrity and fair dealings.

These considerations induced me to give the management of a few reservations of Indians to them…The result has proven most satisfactory.”


President Grant stated in his 2nd Annual Message, December 5, 1870:

“Reform in…Indian affairs has received the special attention…

The experiment of making it a missionary work was tried with a few agencies given to the denomination of Friends (Quaker), and has been found to work most advantageously…

Indian agencies being civil offices, I determined to give all the agencies to such religious denominations as had heretofore established missionaries among the Indians, and perhaps to some other denominations…to Christianize and civilize the Indians, and to train him in the arts of peace.”


President Grant stated to Congress, January 1, 1871:

“Civilized Indians of the country should be encouraged in establishing for themselves forms of Territorial government compatible with the Constitution…

This is the first indication of the aborigines desiring to adopt our form of government, and it is highly desirable that they become self-sustaining, self-relying, Christianized, and civilized.”


President Grant stated in his 3rd Annual Message, December 4, 1871:

“The policy pursued toward the Indians has resulted favorably…

Through the exertions of the various societies of Christians…many tribes of Indians have been induced to settle upon reservations, to cultivate the soil, to perform productive labor of various kinds, and to partially accept civilization…

I recommend liberal appropriations to carry out the Indian peace policy, not only because it is humane, Christianlike, and economical, but because it is right.”

Oklahoma had missions run by Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Quakers, Moravians and Mennonites, who had a mission among the Comanches at Post Oak Mission and at Colony.

Catholics had missions in the Potawatomi Nation at Sacred Heart Abbey, at Anadarko on the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache Reservation, and in north central Oklahoma among the Osage, Ponca, and Otoe.


In 1884, one of the first missionaries to the Yupik Indians in Alaska was John Henry Killbuck, great-grandson of Lenape Chief Gelelemend, who in 1778 made the first Indian Treaty with the United States and later was converted to Christianity by German Moravian missionaries.


President Cleveland issued the Proclamation respecting Church property in Alaska, November 14, 1896:

“Whereas…the Russian Empire ceded to the US the Territory of Alaska…the churches which have been built in the ceded territory…shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church…

The Cathedral Church of St. Michael…The Church of the Resurrection…called the Kalochian Church, situated near the battery number at the palisade separating the city from the Indian village….Three timber houses…for lodging of priests. Four lots of ground belonging to the parsonages.”


Growing up in a Quaker family, Herbert Hoover spent several months as a boy living on the Osage Indian Reservation in Oklahoma Territory.

After becoming a multi-millionaire in the mining industry and organizing the feeding of Europe after World War I, Hoover became the 31st U.S. President.


He chose as his Vice-President Charles Curtis, the nation’s first Native American Vice-President, from the Kaw tribe in Kansas.

Hoover reorganized and provided increased funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The next President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had John Collier serve as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1933-45.


The son of a successful Atlanta businessman, John Collier pressured Congress to pass the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 which preserved Indian identity by restoring native lands, improving reservation medical services, and promoting development of business opportunities for Indians.

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Was America once a Christian nation?

By Bill Federer via American Minute
Was America once a Christian nation?

Exclusive: Bill Federer looks at Obama’s 2006 statement in light of state constitutions

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”  – President Barack Obama, June 28, 2006

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out “whatever we once were”?

Originally, laws that governed personal behavior were under states’ jurisdiction, not federal.

People today are aware that some states allow minors to consume alcohol, and others do not; some states have smoking bans, and others do not; some states allow gambling, and others do not; some states attempt to limit the Second Amendment, and others do not; some states allow gay marriage, and others do not; and one state allows prostitution, while the rest do not.

At the time the Constitution was written, religion was under each individual state’s jurisdiction, and each state expanded religious tolerance at its own speed.

The U.S. Constitution went into effect June 21, 1788, when two-thirds of the states ratified it.

What was in those original 13 state Constitutions concerning religion at the time those states ratified the U.S. Constitution? [Caps added throughout for emphasis.]

DELAWARE – first to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“Every person … appointed to any office … shall … subscribe … ‘I … profess faith in GOD THE FATHER, and in JESUS CHRIST His only Son, and in the HOLY GHOST, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'”

PENNSYLVANIA – second to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution, signed by Ben Franklin:

“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall … subscribe … ‘I do believe in one GOD, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.'”

NEW JERSEY – third to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“All persons, professing a belief in the faith of any PROTESTANT sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government … shall be capable of being elected.”

GEORGIA – fourth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1777 state constitution:

“Representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county … and they shall be of the PROTESTANT religion.”

CONNECTICUT – fifth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, retained its 1662 Colonial Constitution, which was established PROTESTANT CONGREGATIONAL, till 1818:

“By the Providence of GOD … having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent Constitution … whereby the legislature depends on the free and annual election. … The free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility and CHRISTIANITY call for.”

MASSACHUSETTS – sixth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1780 state constitution, written by John Adams:

“Any person … before he … execute the duties of his … office … [shall] subscribe … ‘I … declare, that I believe the CHRISTIAN religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.’ … The legislature shall … authorize the support and maintenance of public PROTESTANT teachers of piety, religion and morality.”

MARYLAND – seventh to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“No other test … ought to be required, on admission to any office … than such oath of support and fidelity to this State … and a declaration of a belief in the CHRISTIAN religion.”

SOUTH CAROLINA – eighth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1778 state constitution:

“No person shall be eligible to a seat … unless he be of the PROTESTANT religion. … The CHRISTIAN PROTESTANT religion shall be deemed … the established religion of this State.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE – ninth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1784 state constitution:  “No person shall be capable of being elected … who is not of the PROTESTANT religion.”

VIRGINIA – 10th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution, bill of rights, written by James Madison and George Mason:

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice CHRISTIAN forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

NEW YORK – 11th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1777 state constitution:

“The United American States … declare … ‘Laws of nature and of NATURE’S GOD … All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights … Appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE of the world … A firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE’ …”

NORTH CAROLINA – 12th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“No person, who shall deny the being of GOD or the truth of the PROTESTANT religion, or the Divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding … office.”

RHODE ISLAND – 13th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, retained its 1663 Colonial Constitution till 1843, which stated:

“By the blessing of God … a full liberty in religious concernements … rightly grounded upon GOSPEL principles, will give the best and greatest security … in the true CHRISTIAN faith and worship of God. … They may … defend themselves, in their just rights and liberties against all the enemies of the CHRISTIAN faith.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black wrote inEngel v. Vitale, 1962:

“As late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established Churches in at least eight of the 13 former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five.”

John K. Wilson wrote in “Religion Under the State Constitutions 1776-1800″ (Journal of Church and State, Volume 32, Autumn 1990, Number 4, pp. 754):

“An establishment of religion, in terms of direct tax aid to Churches, was the situation in nine of the 13 colonies on the eve of the American revolution.”

The Journal of the U.S. House recorded that on March 27, 1854, the 33rd Congress voted unanimously to print Rep. James Meacham’s report, which stated:

“At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State – certainly 10 of the 13 – provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government. …

“Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain 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 been strangled in its cradle.”

Over the years, the Christians in these states extended tolerance to other denominations, to Jews, to monotheistic religions, to any religion and eventually to atheists.

Activists judges creatively used the 14th Amendment to remove authority over many issues from state jurisdiction.

Though our government has seemingly abandoned ties to the past, for the student of history, it is still fascinating to find out “whatever we once were.”  —

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

C.S. Lewis, ‘Mere Christianity’

American Minute By Bill Federer
His death went unnoticed, as he died the same day John F. Kennedy was shot.His books are some of the most widely read in English literature, with over 200 million sold worldwide and, nearly 50 years after his death, continue to sell a million copies a year.

His name was Clive Staples Lewis, born NOVEMBER 29, 1898.


At age 19, he fought in the trenches in World War I.

An agnostic, he became a professor at Oxford and Cambridge.


He credits his Catholic friend and fellow writer, J.R.R. Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, as being instrumental in bringing him to faith in Christ.


Among his most notable books are: The Screwtape Letters; Miracles; The Problem of Pain; Abolition of Man; and The Chronicles of Narnia, which include The Lion, Witch and Wardrobe.

C.S. Lewis stated (The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944. pp. 154-165):


“If…I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit science.

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of atoms,

I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”

In Mere Christianity, 1952, C.S. Lewis wrote:

“All that we call human history – money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery – is the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.”


C.S. Lewis expressed in Mere Christianity, 1952:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.


He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”


In The Screwtape Letters, 1942, C.S. Lewis wrote:

“The safest road to Hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

C.S. Lewis wrote:

“God cannot give us happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”

“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘All right, then, have it your way.'”

“Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive.”


C.S. Lewis wrote:

“Christianity…is a religion you could not have guessed…It is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.”

In Mere Christianity, 1952, C.S. Lewis wrote:

“The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a fetus in a woman’s body.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sojourner Truth heard ‘a voice from Heaven’ and began spreading ‘God’s plan for salvation’

By Bill Federer
Born a slave in New York in 1797, she spoke only Dutch until sold around the age of 9, together with a flock of sheep, for $100.Suffering hardships, her third master made her marry an older slave with whom she had five children.


In 1827, she escaped to Canada.

After New York abolished slavery, she returned as a domestic servant and helped with Elijah Pierson’s street-corner preaching.

Her name was Sojourner Truth.


In 1843, Sojourner Truth heard “a voice from Heaven” and began spreading “God’s truth and plan for salvation.”

In Massachusetts, she worked with abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, Sojourner Truth moved to Washington, D.C., met Lincoln and helped former slaves.

In 1850, she dictated her biography, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, stating:

“When I left the house of bondage I left everything behind. I wanted to keep nothing of Egypt on me, and so I went to the Lord and asked him to give me a new name.”


Sojourner Truth continued:

“I set up my banner, and then I sing, and then folks always comes up ’round me, and then…I tells them about Jesus.”

Her last full day on earth was NOVEMBER 25, 1883. Sojourner Truth would begin her messages:

“Children, I talk to God and God talks to me.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

PEOPLE OF THE BOOK – what does the quran say about Christians and Jews?

            You may think it is an honor to be called ‘people of the book’. This is the islamic term referring to Christians and Jews in the Islamic scriptures, but what you are not told is that it is of the lowest infidel ranks worthy of death. These words are written and confirmed in the quran and haddith. They do not want you do know the truth. It’s the perfect term so we don’t start ripping our ‘coexist’ bumper stickers off. It’s a term that pretty much shuts us all up. It’s clear that Islam has taken over many countries and they do so because of the ignorance of the people. You may have heard the term taqiyya or kitman, these are ways of deceiving people for allah, which is allowed as long as it spreads their cause.

               It is written very clearly throughout the quran that muslims are each called to fight. In fact, fighting is mandatory. You need to know this and the children in public schools need to be taught the truth. Students are taught that Jews and Christians are honored as people of the book, they share the same god, allah, they are similar to Muslims, but they have different rights but still enjoy religious freedom in many Muslim countries. This couldn’t be further from the truth, yet our schools continue to teach the lies in ignorance of the truth and people continue to believe every word they hear without searching for the truth.

TRUE DEFINITION of ‘PEOPLE OF THE BOOK’ aka ‘JEWS AND CHRISTIANS’ FROM THE WORDS OF THE QURAN:

  • ignorant pagans cursed by allah
  • unbelievers
  • perverted transgressors with no faith
  • rebellious deceivers with falsehood that try to cover the truth of allah
  • try to trick muslims to believing them
  • allah sends terror in their hearts because they have no understanding
  • they are the worst of creatures
  • they are the worst of beasts
  • have been deceived intentionally by allah
  • have a disease in their heart that allah increases
  • disobedient of no understanding
  • will be transformed to swine and apes
  • will be burned over and over again in the fires of hell
  • blasphemy by saying God has a Son
  • cursed
  • wicked
  • full of selfish envy
  • liars
  • they think they are going to heaven but those are vain desires
  • shame pitched over their faces
  • will be mutilated to the point of unrecognition if they don’t turn to allah
  • they believe any lie
  • are to be treated with enmity and hatred
  • cursed by allah
  • are always plotting schemes
  • they are hypocrites steeped in self glory (verses listed below, please see)

You see, it’s not politically correct to say such things, that might offend the muslim. Do you see how twisted the play on words gets? It actually should offend the Christians, but to manipulate and downplay the words of the Quran they stand up and fight back when we quote the true words of Mohammed. This silences the people and opens a door for sharia to come in.

I have met many muslims people and they have been very kind people, but their teachings say another thing. Allah tells them they must fight all unbelievers even if they don’t want to( Surah2:216). I’m not here to argue, but to inform Christians and Jews of the real definition they have of you, that you know they are not to be friends with any unbeliever and each one is called out to fight for allah and his cause. Some will counter the scripture with another and others will say it cannot be translated from Arabic, but if it cannot be translated it cannot be and therefore is not- which it is, so that’s not an excuse either.

If you are a Muslim reading this, this message for you: 
For God so loved you, that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3:16-18
Isaiah foretold of this: A child will be given unto us He will be Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign forever Isaiah 9:6-7 Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel which means God with us Isaiah 7:14 “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession. 9 You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and you perish Psalm 2:4-12 God has a Son Proverbs 30:4 Matthew 27:54, These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,[a] and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of  God 1 JOhn 5:13, Revelation 2:8, John 3:19,
Jesus is the Son of God: Then when daylight came, the assembly of the elders of the people, which included both chief priests and scribes, met and marched him off to their own council. There they asked him, “If you really are Christ, tell us!” “If I tell you, you will never believe me, and if I ask you a question, you will not answer me. But from now on the Son of Man will take his seat at the right hand of almighty God.” Then they all said, “So you are the Son of God then?””You are right; I am,” Jesus told them luke 22:66-70 Isaiah 53 1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 peter 2:24, mark 15:24, Hebrews 6:6, Eph 2:16, Gal 3:13, Rev 1:7, John 19:33-37

According to the public school world history books, the definition of people of the book : Jews and Christians who are spiritually superior to polytheistic idol worshippers
.worldhistorybook 012worldhistorybook 011

ARE MUSLIMS PEACE LOVING? Verses from the Quran: “Unbelievers are your enemies” Surah 4:101 “Rouse them to fight for they are without understanding. 8:65 You cannot have a prisoner of war until you have subdued the land 8:67. You must fight all who fight allah 2S196And slay them wherever ye catch 2S191 Fight them and allah will punish them by your hands 9:14 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing that is good for you, and that you love a think that is bad for you. 2S216 Fight the cause of Allah to him who fighteth in the cause of allah soon shall we give him a reward of great value 474Fight allahs cause 484Seize them and slay them wherever you get them, we have provided you with a clear argument against them. 491fight those who believe not in allah nor the law even if they are people of the book, until they pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel subdued 929 when you meet unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them. Those who are slain in the way of a. he will never let their deeds be lost Surah 473-4. allah loves those who fight his cause Surah 61:4 and the people of the book , (allah) did a cast terror in their hearts, so some you slew, and some you made prisoners. Suah 31

DOES THIS LINE UP WITH THE WORDS OF JESUS? ” I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

According to the Quran, the muslims believe the following about the PEOPLE OF THE BOOK:

  • Jews and Christians are people of the book
  • The people of the book reject the truth and will not depart until they see clear evidence. Those who reject the truth ( the people of the book) will be in hell fire to dwell in , for they are the worst of creatures. But those who have faith and do good deeds are the best of creatures, and their reward is gardens of eternity. 98:1
  • say people of the book, do you disapprove of us, for no other reason than that we believe in allah, and the revelation , and perhaps that most of you are rebellious and disobedient 5.59
  • but you are stronger than they are because of the terror in their hearts sent from allah they are men of no understanding. 59:13
  • say, To them, he transformed them into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil, these are many worse in rank 5.60
  • It is the wish of the people of the book to lead you astray. But they lead themselves astray and do not perceive! 3.69
  • Ye people of the book! Why do you reject allah? 3.70
  • Ye people of the book! Why do you cover truth with falsehood? 3.71
  • People of the book- there is no call on us to keep faith with these ignorant pagans, they lie against allah and they know it. 3.75
  • The jews say, a hand is tied up, be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the blasphemy the utter, nay, they are obstinate rebellious 5.64
  • say, o people of the book, you have no ground to stand on unless you stand fast by the law, they are obstinate and rebellious but don’t fret over these people without faith. 5.68
  • they do blasphemy who say allah is one of three in a trinity, for a grievous penalty will befall them 5.73
  • if any believe not in allah and his messenger, we have prepared for those who reject allah a blazing fire. 48.13
  • They have a disease in their heart and allah increases it 2:10
  • People of the book wish they could turn muslims back to infidelity only because o of their selfish envy 13:109
  • People of the book say only they enter paradise, but they say it with vain desires, say ‘prove it’ 13:111
  • Even if you were to bring to the people of the book all the signs, they would not follow. They follow their own desires and are indeed clearly wrong S 2:5 .
  • Say, O people of the book, come to common terms as between us and you, that we worship non but allah that we associate no partners with him. 3:64
  • Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was true in faith and bowed to a. .3.67
  • People of the book obstruct those who believe in allah and make it crooked 3.99
  • People of the book have no faith, they are perverted transgressors 3.110.
  • Shame is pitched over the people of the book like a tent. 3.112
  • Soon we will cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers 3.151
  • Allah has cursed the Jews for their unbelief 4.46
  • O ye people of the book, believe us before we change your face of fame to beyond recognition or curse them 4.47
  • Unbelievers believe in sorcery and evil 4.51
  • Those who reject us will be cast into the fire as often as their skins are roasted through, we shall change them for fresh skins, they may taste the penalty People of the book broke their covenant 4.155
  • They said (People of the book) , in boast , We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, it was only made to appear to them and those who differ therin are full of doubts, with no knowledge, for they killed him not 4.157
  • O People of the book! Commit no excesses in your religion, Christ Jesus the son of mary, was no more than a Messenger of Allah Do not say trinity, for it will not be good for you. Allah is above having a son 4.171
  • we had a covenant with the Christians, but they forgot a good part of the message so we estranged them(Christians) with enmity and hatred 5.14
  • O people of the book! There is a new light and a new book 5.15
  • It is blasphemy to say that allah is Christ 5.17
  • The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and his beloved, but say to them, Why does then he punish you for your sins? 5.18
  • Jews will listen to any lie, they are fond of listening to falsehood 5.41
  • we sent Jesus to confirm the law and we sent him the gospel 5.46
  • If people of the book fail to judge by the light of allah, they are as those who rebel 5.47 5.52
  • These people have a heart of disease 5.72
  • They do blasphemy those who say God is Christ , son of mary, but said Christ O children of Israel, worship alllah Curses were put on the children of Israel, by the tongue of David and Jesus 5.77
  • strongest among men in enmity to the believers with thou find in Jews and pagans and who say we are Christians, but they are arrogant 8.82
  • Oh you who believe, Do not question what has been made known to you. 5.101
  • I inspired the disciples 5.111
  • The deaf and dumb (unbelievers- people of the book) are the worst of beasts, if allah had found in them any good, the would have made them listen 8.22-23 9.30
  • the Jews call uzayr a son of god, and the Christians call Christ the son of God, but is only a saying from their mouth and allah curse is upon them because they hide the truth. Those who oppose allah will go to hell 9.61
  • The hypocrites join in evil and forbid what is just. They are perverse and rebellious. 9.64
  • you cannot guide the blind unbelievers or prevent them from straying, only those who listen will bow down to islam 27.81
  • and when the word was fulfilled against the unbelievers, we will produce from the earth a beast to face them, he will speak to them because mankind did not believe surah 27
  • and the unbelievers say to those who believe follow our path and we will bear the consequence of your faults. Never in the least will they bear their faults, in fact they are liars. 29:12
  • unbelievers are steeped in self glory and separatism 38:2
  • say, is it ye that deny him, who created the earth in 2 days? And do ye join equals with him? 41.9
  • The unbelievers say, listen not to this quran, but talk at random in the midst of its reading. That ye may gain the upper hand, but we will certainly give the unbelievers a taste of sever penalty and we ill require them for the worst of their deeds- fire will be their eternal home, a fit requital. 41.26
  • we gave Moses the book 41.45
  • When the son of mary is held up as an example, behold, they people raise a clamor thereat in ridicule and the say, what god is best? 43. 57
  • Muhammad is the messenger of allah and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, but compassionate to each other. 48.29
  • have you seen the hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the people of the book? If you are expelled, we will go with you, but a. is witness that they are liars 59:11: unbelievers are plotting a scheme, but allah is plotting a scheme also. 86:15-17 87:8
  • and we will make it easy for thee to follow the simple path (Jesus said the way is narrow and difficult and few men enter)
  • Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. Surah 5:33 (Surah means chapter- all verses above are from quran, their haddith has more)

pc from huffingtonpost 

Wake up! Read the Word of God and pray for discernment. The Lord has said to Israel – and His word stands forever- He has loved them with an everlasting love. Jesus said “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled”

At the same time,” says the Lord,
“I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.”
2 Thus says the Lord:
“The people who survived the sword Found grace in the wilderness— Israel, when I went to give him rest.”
3 The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying: “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.
4 Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt, O virgin of Israel!

For God so loved you, that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3:16-18

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Galations 1:8

           But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! 1 Cor 11:3-5


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,995 other followers