CHRISTIANS SHOULD ENTER ALL DEBATES WITH SCRIPTURE IN HEART

More than once I have had someone in the middle of a disagreement about politics say something along the lines of “a separation of church and state” or “ a theocracy”. My standard reply is the fact that I have never personally heard one individual ever…. in my lifetime… of any political persuasion…… suggest we should have a theocracy. I have never heard anyone suggest the church dictate the laws and the actions of the United States government.

I have always stated the obvious in this kind of discussion. What a person sincerely believes (or his religion) will affect the way he conducts all of his business – personal, family, career, and citizen participation. It is a tremendous advantage to know where a candidate or an officeholder is coming from and when they speak directly about what their personal beliefs and the origins and experiences of their beliefs are, that is a good thing. Many famous people in American history have quoted scripture and, whether sincerely or not, many have used a religious viewpoint or quote to justify or explain their behavior.

Again, I assert this is a good thing. It does not violate the true meaning of separation church and state or form some kind of theocracy. It merely reveals what the person says he is thinking.

Those that oppose even the mention of Christian thinking or scripture in a political discussion are quick to refer to things like The Spanish Inquisition and how the combination of religion and politics has an awful history. But I have a difficult time believing that they do not know it is THE PERVERSION OF CHRISTIANITY that does not mix well with anything, not Christianity.

The Inquisition was in Spain. Spain had a monarchy. While it is true the big shot in the whole dark period was in the clergy, he was never anything more than an advisor to the King and Queen. Presidents and Kings have often had advisors, like Obama’s Valerie Jarrett, that they gave near unlimited power to, but broke no laws in doing such.

It would have been a great advantage back in this day had the Bible been available to everyone if the references to doing God’s work had been openly discussed. The actions in The Inquisition were clearly wrong and New Testament refutations could have flowed from an unformed public. Instead, Torquemada unleashed his perverted ideas and used his position to stamp his behavior as “Christian” with little debate. Partially because of threats and partially because of a citizenry greatly limited in their ability to debate the truth of scripture, Torquemada’s own belief system, whatever you want to call it, was pushed on Ferdinand and Isabella.

Therefore, I would say it is ignorance and the dismissal of those who would justify or footnote their application of the Bible that has helped cause religion to have caused some dark days in world history. The Founders quoted scripture and many believed Christianity’s presence and influence in the Americas would be the only way the Constitution would work.

Please find below a short history on The Inquisition:

The Inquisition was established by the Monarchs of Spain in the atmosphere of a period of war with the Moors who were finally defeated at Granada in 1492. The Inquisition had been motivated by fear and distrust of both Jewish and Moorish converts whose loyalty to the state was suspect.

The Inquisition was officially not concerned with non-Christian Jews and Moors but with those who claimed to have converted to Catholicism. The sincerity of these people in their claim of conversion was held in suspicion and there was the general feeling that the larger body of Jewish population harbored potentially subversive elements.

The distrust of the Jews finally led to the Alhambra Decree sponsored by Tomas de Torquemada which resulted in the general expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492. Tomas had apparently chaffed at the limitation of the power of his office as Grand Inquisitor only to the Jewish converso (that is, Jews who claimed to have converted to Christianity). Tomas detested the Spanish Jews who had not converted. He therefore, vigorously, urged Ferdinand and Isabella to issue an edict commanding all Jews to either leave Spain or convert to Catholicism.

The Jews offered Ferdinand a large sum of money. Ferdinand might have accepted the offer but for a dramatic reaction from Tomas in which he stormed the Palace and accused the king of wanting to sell Christ for money like Judas did.

The jurisdiction of the Inquisition, as already mentioned, was limited to Christians over the age of fourteen, especially Jews and Moors who claimed to have converted to Christianity but were believed to be secretly practicing their old religions. Historians believe that about 2000 people were burned by the Inquisition between 1480and 1530.

The abuses of the Inquisition made Tomas so unpopular than an armed guard of 250 footmen and 50 mounted men had to be provided for his security. The abuses included arbitrary detentions, torture, and reliance on anonymous denunciation. Wealthy Moors and Jews were often targeted for judicial murder and their wealth appropriated. Anyone who spoke against the Inquisition could be arrested on contrived charges of heresy.

A Jew merely suspected of being a "marrano," not only had his property taken over by the Inquisition but he would be publicly humiliated by being forced to march through the streets naked from the waist down and flogged. "Marranos" were forced to live in isolated ghettos in which the conditions were very poor.

Tomas made an elaborate show of organizing a fair trial, most likely to soothe his conscience over the killings. In theory, an accused who confessed his sin of apostasy or heresy would be allowed to go free without any further consequences if he recanted, kissed the cross and confessed Christ. But in reality the chances of going free on confession narrowed as the trial went through its stages. At a point in the trial the accused would be gagged to prevent him from confessing.

The accused was assumed to be guilty from the evidence of unnamed accusers who were adjudged responsible citizens. Torture would be administered to force confession. An accused person who refused to confess would finally be handed over to the civil authorities for execution. Execution was done by burning. The accused person who refused to confess throughout the trial would be executed by slow burning using green wood while those who confessed before execution could be allowed mercy by quick burning using dry seasoned wood. The luckiest were garroted.

Tomas had always been an intensely religious man devoted to his faith throughout his life. He had been an ascetic friar who wore clothing of coarse materials beneath his robe to mortify his flesh. The apparent contradiction between his religious piety and involvement in the cruel murder of an estimated 2000 people can only be explained by the pattern of morality typical of the "Abrahamic" religions in which the highest expression of morality is service to God and religion. That was the context of understanding of the duty of man in which a blood drenched career is interpreted as holy service to the Christian deity.

Torquemada's exemplary service to God earned him several admirable titles: "Hammer of Heretics," "Light of Spain," and "Savior of His Country."

 

OPEN CARRY CRITIC CAME TO TAKE IT, LEFT EMPTY HANDED

At the risk of us all overdosing on i-dineout, I would like to give the person who wrote this comment some unfiltered responses, including any comments added to this one.

Here is the comment I am referencing: “I can't abide ignorance the "come and take it" flag never flew over the State of Texas, it goes back to the Revolution then at the Battle of Gonzalez the first against the Mexicans. Now it's been co-opted by those fascists Tea Party groups who are blaspheming it's original intent with their anti government ideals. Anyway those who use it now don't understand why or how it was first used, Saturday it was used by the gun worshipping goons.”  

I am familiar with the group the commentator is calling “ignorant blasphemers” and I can assure you that most, if not all of the adults, know the history of the “Come and Take It” flag. I also can assure the commentator if he was supporting this gun issue he would think there was no more appropriate symbol to carry than the flag flown at Gonzalez in 1835 and around Texas in memorial ever since.

As the commentator surely knows (without googling or any reference material ), Mayor Andrew Pontoon of Gonzalez and other citizens challenged Santa Anna’s troops to try take the cannon left there by the Mexican government to protect them from Indians. Open Carry Texas (OCT) is all about the right to keep the government from seizing or over regulating their guns.  Both things in Texas, both about the government trying to restrict citizens from having firepower to defend themselves, and both using, yes – “ a demonstrative way to express displeasure with the government.”

Again, I can think of no better symbol history for OCT to carry with them. If the commentator can, please write in and let us know. Otherwise,  the commentator’s argument against OCT seems to be best represented by simply saying, “I disagree. I know 7^th grade Texas history and there fore I am right and here is some name calling that might make you I think I am still in 7^th grade.”

                                                              HIS ISSUE WOULD HAVE MORE
                                                                                               MAINSTREAM SUPPORT IF PEOPLE
                                                                                                    WOULD HEAR BOTH SIDES


It is purely conjecture, but I suspect many of those pioneers in early Texas would approve of OCT’s cause.

Editor’s note: I am tired of people acting like they have some kind of monopoly on, or secret facts from, history

YES OR NO, MORALITY IS LEGISLATED

The primary focus of this article will be to ask readers to reconsider this common saying:

“You can not legislate morality.” 

For Christians I post this scripture as a possible beginning from which to consider what I consider the absolute falsehood of that all too common saying. Here is I Timothy1: 8-10:    

“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,… 

In a Republic such as the United States, I certainly object to even the best of the 43 Presidents or the most brilliant of all of the Justices who have ever served on the Supreme Court being “the deciders” of the laws that will govern our society forever and ever. But I do believe our system is the best the world has ever known and, if “We The People” actively participate in the process, it will continue to be the best way to govern man has ever implemented. 

Are there too many laws? Absolutely! Are some of the laws unnecessary or unconstitutional? For sure! Should there be far far less federal legislation and dictatorial, unconstitutional acts from our Presidents, our federal courts, and our congress? No doubt…… but regardless of the fact that founders meant for most decisions and laws to be made by elected officials close to those who put them in office….. I would say those who have accepted the idea that morality can not be legislated need to reconsider.

Arguments pro and con are welcome. Please note that I am not talking about a theocracy and I seriously doubt anyone commenting will suggest church leaders be placed in charge of what our laws should be (unless elected by the people). I am however suggesting that every voter would apply their standard or their idea of what is right and what is wrong, and some people (including me) will undoubtedly come from the similar perspective as their pastor or their priest or their rabbi or the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah.  

And yes, before Libertarians accuse me of believing it, I am again on record suggesting that this is not a new concept. Many of our Founders believed that this society was set up that way by them as they left Moses and the Ten Commandments carved and mounted in public displays all over the original states and subsequent states. The laws they passed are irrefutable evidence on all kinds of matters.  

 

Anyone who thinks they know some secret history or that I am promoting a perversion of history to go along with my narrow-minded view that restricts liberty, please do not leave comments that refer readers to books or websites etc. Express your opinion, use reasonable length quotes if necessary, but we don’t want to debate your reference material. 

As usual, no comments on this site with as many hits as it gets, means I am right and you agree. LOL! Just kidding!!

IF ANYONE IS "NUTS", IT IS PEOPLE WHO YAWN AS FREEDOM IS TAKEN

The following is a comment that appeared on a local blog that deserves to be rebutted as often as possible. So let me start the rebuttal (I will leave plenty to be said for those who want to leave comments on either side).

The following comment was posted Sunday and is in reference to the “Open Carry” march in Liberty Saturday. One of the reasons I find this important for me to comment on is that my first impression of the way this group has presented this issue in recent months was not favorable to the marchers. But it was a lack of information and an assumption that nothing could be said that could justify marching with weapons like like-minded people have done across the state. With no further introduction, here is the comment: 

“I noticed the flags they carried, which I think is telling in the chapter's ideals, which were some what aggressive, "Come and take it" and I think one was "Don't tread on me", I may be mistaken on that one, but I noticed the only U.S. flag I saw being carried was by a young boy at the rear of the marchers around five or six years old. The absence of the American flag carried in prominence told me of the chapter's opinion of the government. They protest their rights under the Constitution but neglect to show respect for the flag that is symbolic of that very Constitution. These people are misguided in their concept of what it means to be an U.S. citizen.” 

But nothing this commentator wrties could be farther from the truth! In addition to the American flag that was carried, the marchers carried one of the most patriotic flags in our country’s history and one of the most patriotic flags in Texas history. The Gadsden flag, the one is a with a yellow field depicting a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike, harkens all the way back to Ben Franklin’s drawing that is inscribed, “Join or Die”. That drawing depicts the American colonies as a snake cut in sections and was a dramatic way to gain attention to the idea that colonists better unify and fight or they would lose their liberty. Positioned below the rattlesnake on the Gadsen flag are the words "Don't Tread on Me". The flag is as patriotic as it gets when youn take pride in the American Revolution that was taking place as it waived in battle after battle in our war against England and later was used by the Continental Marines as an early motto flag. 

And of course, the other flag memorializes the brave hearts that fought for Texas independence and, more particularly, Alcalde Pontoon and the courageous citizens of Gonzalez in 1835.

Indicating these people are not patriotic is a mistake. I have had occasion to visit with some of these people. Two preachers and one very capable head of a political group that has many political stances like Texas Republicans. They may disagree with you on the role of guns in American society. They may disagree with you on what the Constitution means, but their dominant motivation is the defense of our freedom. Their vigilance is admirable. Their willingness to spend a great deal of time and money and all the time know that most people’s first impression is that they are a bunch of nuts, reminds me of reading about the days when Samuel Adams did much the same thing.

I find every side of most every issue in politics has a strong opinion based on their version of history. As a history teacher, I would say people in this group are way above average in their knowledge and their pride in American history and the Constitution. I can tell the commentator has a very high opinion of their grasp of history too.  The only problem with that is I am also amazed at how perverted or selective almost everyone’s view of history is. It is as if we all agree the textbooks have mistakes in them (which they definitely do), but we are nowhere close to agreeing with what the mistakes are. So when I read a comment like this one, I immediately think person would have great difficulty arguing his side using the Constitution if a debate with one of the marchers was organized.

If Texans study what it is these marchers dramatically draw attention to, many will agree. Some may disagree, but still accept the marchers as well intended. And then there will be ….. of course those who would increase restrictions on gun ownership that would use the first impressions to turn people off and hope the marchers’ intentions are disregarded.

HYPOCRISY IN OUR GUN LAWS - OPEN CARRY MAY SOUND NUTTY UNLESS YOU ARE BETTER INFORMED

The 'Open Carry" march in Liberty, Texas may, at first glance, look like a bunch of rebel rousers from the fringes of society wanting to declare the need for anarchy rather than Constitutionally based, rule of law, in a government "by the people, for the people." BUT NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

The pictures, the short blurbs on the news, and every other attempt to wake America  is tough because the optics look so threatening. But the threat is not if these marchingare successful, it is if they are not.

 The law will allow citizens to carry all kinds of long rifles openly. And I mean all kinds! But the law will not allow a pistol to be openly carried. So as nutty as it is to some to see folks carrying an AK-47 openly in public, it is infinitely more ridiculous for the same lawmakers to prohibit the open carrying of a pistol. The laws should be reversed. No AK 47's, but a pistol strapped to the hip with a safety strap across the trigger.

The law needs to be changed! These folks are nearly all hard working, patriotic law abiding citizens. they are concerned that the laws should be changed. They are concerned that if the country does not use more common sense and less restricting of our Constitutional rights, when liberty is faced with its ultimate enemy, we will have allowed ourselves to be unarmed. The laws need to be changed before restrictions are expanded and liberty is assaulted further.

Readers please note that Terry Holcomb, Jeff LeBlanc, Aubrey Vaughan, and dozens of other locals have spent a great deal of time and money warning us. At the same time, the liberal media  has enjoyed "covering" this issue in as convoluted of coverage as they can spin out.

The issue is simple. The pictures of marches if reparted in a simple, straight forward way would have a dramatic support in Texas. please help get the word out. The cause, the Open Carry Texas group wants the law to allow handguns to be safely and openly carried in public and end the hypocrisy. The liberal media wants you to feel threatened.

WHO IS REALLY IN CHARGE IN THIS COUNTRY?

The following lesson is a reprint from Pastor Aubrey Vaughan and is an excellent, full explanation of how Christians in the United States should view their relationship to government and elected officials. It is a great reminder that ultimately God is in charge, but we, not some kind of earthly ruler, are responsible to direct government in a way that honors God. The lesson is entitled “Romans 13”.

 

Understanding Romans 13

Romans 13:3 (KJV) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Any individual person in American government is a Public Servant!

The Public is defined as the voters and taxpayers in America. Most understand the definition of servant. However, some seem to place the government officials of America in the position of Ruler rather than Servant.

It is interesting to note that the two positions, Ruler or Servant, seem to contradict each other until you read the scripture that explains the position of government leaders.

God’s Government on Earth was administered after the flood by Noah and the Patriarchs from the authority of Genesis 9:6.

Genesis 9:6 (KJV) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

God destroyed the original World because mankind’s defiled and seared conscience could not produce a world for God fearing people to live safely. Mankind is not basically good.

After the flood God instituted Government force in order to honor life. Life is the basic value for any government. When government Rulers or Servants dishonor the value of human life it despises true government.

2 Peter 2:10 (KJV) But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

See “unlawful” deeds which deals with law or government 2 Peter 2:8

That government of force was vested in the Patriarchal family later, under the Mosaic Law, called the “Avenger of blood”.

The division of nations is described in Genesis 10

Genesis 10:32 (KJV) These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

The nations were directly under the headship and direction of a personal God directing the nations.

In Genesis 10 one particular nation seemed to emerge as a “super” power called Babel, which was later, called Babylon. This people formed a one world government and religion that rejected God. At first Nimrod (the horned one) was a mighty hunter before the Lord and later Babel leads an insurrection against the direct Hand of God’s law and government.

In Genesis 11 God divided the languages and nations for a reason. Historically open borders produce a one-world government that fails to produce a secure and peaceful nation.

In Genesis 14 humanistic Kings used force to push their values of tyranny on the other nations and/or City States.

Abram later called Abraham demonstrated God’s authority in Patriarchal government by arming his hired servants and delivering his family member Lot from unlawful kings and Tidal the King of nations.

Melchizedek apparently was Abraham’s Pastor and mentor concerning God’s theocratic style government for the Earth at the time. Melchizedek was the priest of the most High God and King of Salem.
Genesis 14:18 (KJV) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

By studying Genesis 10-15 it is clear a Babylonian style legal system was forming and later written down in humanistic codes in contrast to God’s City called Salem that was directed by a Theocracy. The tyranny of the five kings of nations and the immorality of Sodom reveal the rejection of God in contrast to the righteous government of Salem through Melchizedek.

By the time of Moses on Mt. Sinai God corrected man’s humanistic codes and attempt to govern himself without God by writing down with God’s own finger the only true Law for mankind on planet Earth.

Any nation that rejects God’s leadership and Law will produce tyrannical Rulers as the King of the world or “President of the World”.

Any nation that honors God’s law Word and leadership will produce limited “Rulers” that are servants. (Deuteronomy17: 1-13)

Through God’s law the Ruler is limited in authority (Deuteronomy 17:14-20) making him a Servant of God for the people.

Ruler and Servant!

Government leaders in America are Servants and given authority by the true Rulers the voter and taxpayer who receive their authority only from God’s Law Word.

 

GREG HAYMAN HONORED

On August 4^th, the Dayton School District will officially rename the old library building at the corner of Cleveland and Houston Streets, the Greg Hayman Education Center. Superintendent Dr. Jessica Johnson said the reception and formal ceremony is a chance to honor Greg Hayman's 29 years of service to the school district. The dedication ceremony and reception will be Monday Aug. 4^th, from 4 to 6 p.m. The entire community is invited.