Is Separation of Church and State Biblical?

The concept of Separation of Church and State was a core part of the founding of the United States of America.  The question is – is this concept Biblical?

Another way to ask this question is – Does the State have no business and no interest in protecting the religious unity and identity of the nation?

This is my final episode in my series “A Defense of Biblical Living” where I am responding to claims and questions of the atheist v logger Rachel Oates.  This also available as a mp3 audio download here and you can also check out my other mp3 downloads on my main audio page.

Is BiblicalGenderRoles.com advocating for overthrowing the government?

I love both the institution of government and my American nation in particular and I also love the institution of the Church as well as my local church that I attend.  But that does not mean that I will not point out failure and corruptions that have occurred in both these institutions that are ordained by God.

There is a feminist and egalitarian writer on Patheos.com name Suzanne Calulu that has been reviewing various articles on my blog for some time.  She is not really writing full reviews – but they really are just quick comments.  Every once in a while I will check out what she has to say about my blog if I am in the mood for a chuckle.

If you search for the tag “Larry Solomon – Biblical Gender Roles” on Patheos.com you will see all her reviews of my past articles.  If you look closely at many of her reviews (which are just a couple of paragraph comments) you will see she often misrepresents me to build a straw man for her audience.  Up until now I have not felt the need to respond but because of recent accusations she has made against me regarding my views of government I felt I needed to publically respond to her libel.

Suzanne Calulu posted a review of my blog on April 5th 2018 entitled “Seizing Christian Evangelical Control Over the Government by Suppressing Women?” in which she stated the following:

I have used screen shots here just in case she tries to delete the article or change her wording.  So if you notice in her title she says I that advocated for Christian evangelicals seize control of the government.  Then in her comment she writes that I said Christians need to “overthrow everything…in order to establish an Evangelical Theocracy.”

In a second review she posted on April 12th 2018 entitled “Suck It Up Brown and Black People – White Folks Rule According to Larry Solomon” Calulu writes the following statement below:

Calulu ‘s statement “He has advocated the violent overthrow of our government by his Theocracy buddies…” and then she insinuates that I should be on the radar of the FBI for what I have written regarding government.

If you look at the two articles she is referencing, which she does not even mention because she does not want her readers actually reading my site, you will find no such assertions by me in either article or for that matter any article on BiblicalGenderRoles.com.

The two articles she is reviewing are “The Case for Christian Nationalism” and “Why Whites Don’t Have to Apologize For White Privilege”.   Read these articles for yourself and you will see the falseness of her accusations.

In the Case for Christian Nationalism I write this about how I envision it would be possible for Christian Nationalism to come to power:

“Secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism and a host of other false gods have fortified themselves much like Jericho did.  They control the courts, legislatures and media.  Only God can take down the stronghold of these false gods that are entrenched in our society.  But we must do our part as Christians to call it out until he does and when he does we as Bible believing Christians need to be prepared to go in after God brings the walls down.”

So, in no way was I advocating for the “violent overthrow of our government.  I said clearly that only God can take down the strongholds that exist in our government and that eventually the government will collapse and I did not insinuate this would happen due to some evangelical Christian army invading Washington, D.C. But rather it will collapse because God brings it down for violating his design of government, nations, marriage and genders.

How will God cause the collapse of the United States?

My wife and I like to watch home remodeling and improvement shows.  What you will find when watching these shows is when they look to knock out walls they must take into consideration that there might be main support beams.  They have to work around these beams or if they can’t they have to add additional supports elsewhere.  If they just cut out the support beams what used to be a solid house structure will eventually crumble.  Sure the house might look nice cosmetically, but if its structure is not sound none of that will matter and it will eventually fall.

The same principle is true in a nation.  As I showed in my article “The Case for Christian Nationalism”, there are three main pillars which support any nation.  These pillars are common religion, common ethnicity and common language.  If you remove any of those pillars eventually that nation will fall.

I showed the United States started as a nation whose people were overwhelming Christian, were mostly of British descent and who spoke English.  I said the founders in their efforts to guard against Christian Church-State governments left the door wide open for secularism to take over America.  Eventually this pillar, that of common religion, began to collapse.

After the Civil War and then changes in immigration law in the 1960’s another pillar was badly damaged and this is the pillar of common ethnicity.  Previously there were quotas in place to make sure most immigrants to America came from Northern European white countries.  These quotas were removed.

So, in a way it is like someone took a saw to two of the main support beams of a house (common religion and common ethnicity) and cut three quarters of the way through each one.  Eventually when one of them snaps the house caves in.

I believe that God has been holding the weakened supports of the United States together but at a point very soon he will let go and allow his natural laws to take full effect.  We in America have sowed “diversity” or what it really is – “division” and we will reap the consequences of that.  Racial, political and religious differences on multiple fronts will eventually lead to the collapse of the United States.

My point in my statements in previous articles was not for advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government by some Evangelical Christian army.  But instead it was that once the government collapses due to a variety of factors Christians should be ready to take control in the absence of a functioning government as opposed to overthrowing a functioning government like what we have now (despite its many flaws and imperfections). Even then when I talk about taking control what I am really alluding to is secession or the mutual breakup of the United States into smaller more unified and thus less diversified parts.

Update 4/25/2018:

I was going to do an article with small short story illustrating a possible future breakup of the United States scenario.  But I have really gotten into writing the story and it is growing and will take some time to get all my ideas into it.  So I will do some other shorter articles in the meantime and get back to you when this story is done.  I am really enjoying it and I might have some friends help me proof read it and make adjustments for style.

Pompeo Was Right, Homosexuality Is a Perversion

“America had worshipped other Gods and called it multiculturalism. We’d endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle” these words were uttered by Mike Pompeo in 2015 at a “God and Country” rally at Summit Church in Wichita, Kansas. Mike Pompeo was actually citing the words of a prayer by Pastor Joe Wright but he was very much endorsing those words.

You can watch Mike Pompeo’s speech here:

Mike Pompeo was a vocal advocate against gay rights and gay marriage during his three terms as a Kansas congressman.

In yesterday’s senate confirmation hearings for his nomination to the position of Secretary of State Senator Cory Booker questioned him as to whether he believed homosexuality was a perversion to which Mike Pompeo responded “When I was a politician, I had a very clear view on whether it was appropriate for two same-sex persons to marry…I stand by that.”

Senator Booker asked him again “So do you not think it is appropriate for two gay people to marry?” and Pompeo’s response wasSenator I continue to hold that view.  Senator Booker concluded his questioning with the following statement:

 “You are going to be representing this country and their values abroad…your views do matter…I do not necessarily concur that you are performing the values of our nation when you can’t even, when you believe that there are people in our country that are perverse…”

I will give my response to Senator Booker’s attack on Mike Pompeo’s Christian faith in the broader context of some of Mr. Pompeo’s previous statements about the intersection between faith and politics.

Below are some excerpts from an article from Vox.com, written by Tara Isabella Burton, entitled “Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick for secretary of state, talks about politics as a battle of good and evil”:

“That Pompeo is an evangelical Christian is, on its face, not particularly notable; 25 percent of Americans are. But Pompeo’s specific brand of evangelical Christianity, with its insistence on seeing Muslim-Christian relations as an apocalyptic holy war, makes him an unnerving choice for such a senior foreign policy position.”

Mike Pompeo is absolutely right that the Islamic Jihad being waged is absolutely a proxy war between Western Civilization which was founded on Christian values vs the Islamic world.  Islamic terrorists very much see the war in this way and we do a great disservice when we try and ignore this fact.

Burton continues:

“During his tenure as CIA director, and before that as a member of the House of Representatives, Pompeo has consistently used language that casts the war on terrorism as a cosmic divine battle of good and evil. He’s referred to Islamic terrorists as destined to “continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior is truly the only solution for our world…

Pompeo clarified that only a small percentage of Muslims were, in fact, terrorists (although in a 2013 speech, he called them potentially complicit in terrorism). Still, his language echoes a wider point: that the war against terrorism can be fought, in part, with Christian faith…”

I say Amen to Mike Pompeo’s previous statements.  Jesus Christ is the savior of the world and he is the only solution for our world. I also agree that the war against terrorism can be fought in part with the Christian faith and the other part of course is sending terrorists on the fast track to hell through the use of American bullets and cruise missiles. We are reminded of the words of King David in this regard:

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight”

Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

Burton then alludes to the previous statement by Mr. Pompeo which Senator Cory Booker took him to task over in today’s hearing:

“In other speeches, he’s characterized American domestic politics as a similarly apocalyptic struggle between good and evil, in which other (non-Christian) faiths and political views were signs of cultural decay. He cited a sermon previously delivered by Pastor Joe Wright in front of the Kansas state legislature: “America had worshipped other Gods and called it multiculturalism. We’d endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.” Sources inside the CIA told Foreign Policy that Pompeo’s speeches within the CIA are no less loaded with explicitly religious language…”

Again Pompeo is absolutely correct.

Politics is absolutely a struggle between good and evil, between what is moral and right and what is immoral and wrong. 

I know that some of my readers are uneasy when I speak on political matters and wish I would just stick strictly to Biblical gender roles and other matters of the Christian faith.

But what I want my readers to understand is you cannot separate these two worlds. Our political world is a reflection of our spiritual and moral world.  Christians cannot hide in the shadows and say “it’s not our fight”.   We need to stand up for what God says is right and we need to take our Christian morals to the voting box with us.  We need to stand for what we believe is right in the midst of a country that has turned its back on it’s Christian heritage.

I very much disagree with Pastors who believe they cannot speak on political matters from the pulpit when they have the greatest source of political truth at their fingertips – the Bible.  Before the infamous Johnson amendment of 1954 Pastors since the beginning of our nation spoke on political matters directly from their pulpits and I believe we need that again after we return our churches to the Bible (which many have forsaken).

Multiculturalism has been poisonous for our culture and it will be one of the primary causes for the fall the United States and Western Civilization.  Mike Pompeo knows this. And yes our culture used to regard homosexuality and transgenderism as a perversion before we have in recent years just called it “an alternative lifestyle”.

The word of God is clear on this topic of homosexuality:

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

So yes Senator Booker – two gay people having sex or marrying is not only “inappropriate” but it also an unnatural perversion in the eyes of God and it should also be in the eyes of man.

Burton alludes to the unsubtle way in which Pompeo links American patriotism with its Christian roots:

“For Pompeo, American patriotism and a narrowly defined brand of Christian pugilism are inextricable from one another. He’s not subtle about it, either. “To worship our Lord and celebrate our nation at the same place is not only our right,” he told attendees at a Kansas rally in 2015, “it is our duty.” He added that politics is “a never-ending struggle … until the rapture.”

He is absolutely right that American patriotism can absolutely find its roots in our Christian founding as John Adams stated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294.

Changing Definitions of What Is “Perverse”

Back in November of 2017, the New York Daily News ran an article entitled “I’m With The Perv!” when Trump supported Roy Moore.  Also many people today think of polygamy as a perversion.

So apparently liberals actually do believe to use Booker’s words “that there are people in our country that are perverse”. But they have a different definition of perverse.

Today we call what men did throughout much of the history of the world “perverse” and what was called perverse not too long ago in this very nation we now call “a right”.

In fact to call homosexuality a perversion is to now be labeled a “hater” according to the GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis:

“Mike Pompeo’s reaffirmed opposition to marriage equality and LGBTQ rights further proves that he is dangerously wrong to serve as our nation’s chief diplomat,” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the LGBTQ rights group GLAAD, said in a statement.

“His personal ties to anti-LGBTQ hate groups and clear refusal to support the hard-fought equal rights of the LGBTQ community make him wholly unqualified to promote human rights abroad,” Ellis continued.”

This wickedness of calling good evil and evil good reminds of a Bible passage that I cite often on this blog:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Our standard as Christians of what is considered “perverse” behavior cannot be based on how we were raised, our life experience, what our culture teaches or even what our laws or Supreme Court says is perverse or wrong.  Our standard must be a higher standard and that is the Word of God.

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 (KJV)

We are called to renew our mind, to undo our cultural programming and the programming of our sin natures on a daily basis and remake our thinking so that it lines up with what God says and not what man says:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

And while we should love all people, all sinners, including homosexuals wishing for them to repent and accept the Gospel we are called by God to hate sin:

“Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.”

Psalm 97:10 (KJV)

Conclusion

As Christians we should pray that God sends more men to Washington like Mike Pompeo who believes that “Jesus Christ our savior is truly the only solution for our world” and will not change his position on gay marriage because God has not changed his position in his Word.

We need to pray that more Pastors of Churches will grow spines and harken unto the words of Mike Pompeo that politics is “that a never-ending struggle … until the rapture.”   We cannot stick our heads in the sand as evangelical Christians any longer saying we have no business in the political world.  It is our duty to bring Christ into every sphere of humanity including and especially the sphere of government.

Why Whites Don’t Have to Apologize For White Privilege

A North Carolina African-American woman was outraged by the fact that her 2nd grader came home with a sheet talking about “white privilege”.  The paper caused her second grader to ask his mother whether white people “are better” than him. She was angry because she thought as an African-American that it was her place to teach her son about race relations and not the schools.   You can find out more about this story here.

Below are statistics that the paper stated regarding “White Privilege” in America:

“Governors: 96% white

Top military advisers: 100% white

President and vice president: 100% white

Current POTUS cabinet: 91% white

People who decide which TV shows we see: 93% white

People who decide which books we read: 90% white

People who decide which news is covered: 85% white

People who decide which music is produced: 95% white

Teachers: 83% white”

Now let’s just take for granted that these numbers regarding white representation in these categories are right.  Next we will ask and answer a very important question – what percentage of the United States is White?

So according to the US Census Bureau 61 percent of the United States is White.  Now the “white privilege” preachers will say “See that does not match up with the fact that 85 to 90 percent and sometimes 100 percent of these key positions in our society are occupied by whites!”

I could answer some of the disparity as to why Whites occupy a higher that their demographic size proportion of these positions with the following statistics:

Marriage matters.  God’s design matters.  When you follow God’s design that a man and woman come together in marriage and THEN have children and raise them together you will have more success.

Someone might say “Well maybe whites marry more than the other races in the United States – but they divorce just as much! So how do you answer that?”  The statistics agree that relatively speaking divorce rates are the same amongst Blacks, Hispanics and whites as seen in the chart below:

First a note about divorce rates.  It is true that officially speaking they are down from their high point of 50 percent in the 1980s.  But the lowering divorce rate is deceptive in that the reason for lowering divorce rates is not because marriages are becoming more stable – it is because more people are NOT marrying and rather choosing to cohabitate instead.

Still it is accurate to say that roughly half of all marriages will end in divorce and that is a very sad state for the status of the family in our society.  As I have noted many times one of the largest reasons for divorce is because of feminist ideology which has allowed women to be the primary instigators of divorce at around 70%.

But coming back to this issue of divorce and race – notice the orange bar in the chart above.  While whites divorce at roughly the same rate as Blacks and Hispanics Whites remarrying at a significantly higher rate of 68.8 percent. What that means is Whites prefer marriage and they will most likely raise their children in a two parent home even if they divorce. Blacks and Hispanics tend to raise their children in single parent homes at a far higher rate than whites due to two factors – the first is they have children out of wedlock at much higher rates and secondly when they do marry and then divorce they are more likely to stay single after divorce.

I could list all kinds of statistics that show the relation between single parent families and poverty and crime but you can find those for yourselves on many government websites.

My point is it would be very easy to show that a sizeable part of the reason that Blacks and Hispanics do not hold positions of power at rates which match their demographic size in the United States is because of poor personal life decisions that affect their own lives and the lives of their children.  It is not hatred toward Blacks or Hispanics to make such a statement – but rather it is simply a statement of fact.

But now let’s look at this from another angle.  What if Blacks and Hispanics did not make these types of poor life decisions at much higher rates than whites? Would that completely account for the disparity in their representation in positions of power? The answer is no.

Ethnic Dominance Is a Human Trait Common to All Nations

Even though bad life decisions certainly can affect a minority ethnic group’s economic and power status within their countries it is not the only factor.  There is a significant factor that has absolutely nothing to do with bad life decisions on the part of a particular minority ethnic group that affects their economic and power status in any given nation at that is Ethnic Dominance.

Human beings naturally cluster by ethnicity and they naturally prefer their own ethnicity to others.  They consciously or unconsciously choose their own ethnicity in whom they marry, whom they associate with (like churches and other associations) and where they choose to live and they also chose societal policies which will benefit and preserve their ethnicity.

Now that does not mean there are not those that do in fact cross ethnic boundaries  – there are people like this in every ethnic group.  But these people are always a rarity. In other words is it not normal (the behavior of the majority in any group) for them to seek and prefer others outside their group.

In most countries whatever group occupies the ethnic majority tends to dominate that culture.  There are some exceptions like in the case of South African Apartheid where a minority of Whites ruled over a nation that was primary Black.

When America was founded, the majority of its inhabitants where those of British decent (English, Welsh or Scottish) and that is why we speak English and many of our laws are based in English common law. Even with large migrations of Germans and other ethnicities into the United States during the 19th century the Germans and others were forced to adapt themselves to the ways of the British ethnicity that founded the country.  But eventually these white Caucasians from various northern European nations intermarried to form a new white ethnicity here in America which continued to dominate the United States throughout the 20th century.  And yes this white ethnicity still dominates the United States today in 2018.

Why Whites Don’t Have to Apologize for White Privilege

One of the common themes I talk about on this blog is human nature.  Just because a certain behavior is normal for most humans does not make it right and just because something is not normal behavior for most humans does not make it wrong either.

As Christians we know that God created an original perfect human nature in the Garden of Eden.  I have argued from the Scriptures on this site that God created a distinct masculine and feminine types of the human nature in many places on this blog.  You can read my article “Is God more like man, more like woman, or a combination of the two?” for more on that subject.  But my point here is that there was a perfect set of human natures that God designed and sin corrupted both of those natures in different ways.

But common to both the masculine and feminine human nature is our preference for our own ethnicity.  The vast majority of both men and women tend to prefer their own ethnicity in most areas of life. So is this preference a sin?

The answer is while the Bible condemns all forms of hatred (and this would include racial) it does not condemn ethnic preference.  See my article “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” for an in-depth look at the Scriptures on this subject.  I argue the follow up article “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?” that we can see in the Scriptures that while God created every nation from one blood – the blood of Adam – his ultimate plan was to divide humanity into nations by ethnic group.  It is part of our God giving programing to prefer our own ethnicity and desire to see our ethnic group grow and prosper.

This is why I do not fault Blacks or Hispanics or Asians or any other ethnic group from for preferring their own and desiring to see their ethnic group grow and prosper.  This is common to all humanity.

However while I understand their preference and their desire for the growth and prosperity of their own ethnic groups they must realize they are still in a culture that is ethnically dominated by Whites.   That is going to change over the coming decades as we know that White births are shrinking and minority birth rates are rising.

But that change is not here yet.

I am a white person with English, German, Polish, Scottish, Irish, American Indian and Jewish ancestry.  So you could say I am a majority White guy and no I don’t look Indian at all because that ancestry is really far back.

So because I share physical attributes with the dominant ethnic group in this country I may be treated differently and have some “privilege”.   Do I need to apologize for that? No I do not. And neither does any other White person in America.  Should we condemn racial hatred toward minorities as Christians? Absolutely.  When we see true injustice committed against a minority based on their ethnicity should we condemn such actions? Yes.

But we as Whites should no more apologize for being white, or preferring our own than we should apologize for gravity. 

It is the nature of how the world works and it is not a sin against God to behave in this way.  As I have argued in other articles it is actually by God’s design.  Also we as White parents need to start standing up to this White privilege garbage that is being shoved down the throats of our students at all levels of our education system.

Where Does This Leave Minorities Today?

I have said it multiples and I will say it again. The United States and Western nations in general decided to completely upend basic principles of civilization that worked for thousands of years.  Nations were built around common ethnicity, common religion (which formed the foundation for cultural values) and common language.  Families were built on patriarchy.  These systems were built with the knowledge of how human nature actually works.

Communism failed because it rejected some facts about human nature.  First it tried to take away religion from people like when Stalin had thousands of Russian Orthodox priests executed and killed many other millions of Christians.  Secondly it tried to remove private ownership and competition from economies opting for equal outcomes for all its citizens.  But what they did not realize is that human beings in general have a natural longing for belief in something greater than this world.  We were built by God to seek out our creator.  Secondly human beings only thrive when they can compete for and acquire private property. So when you take God and the ability to earn private property through competition out of the equation – you remove two of the most power forces that drive human beings.

In the same way, like Communism, our modern ideologies of multiracialism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and feminism violate how we know human nature works.  We have been artificially holding back the dam of the natural consequences of going against human nature for 150 years and eventually that dam will break and Western civilization will fall as a result.

So if you are a minority living in the United States you have some choices to make.  You can accept the reality of racial preference and ethnic dominance and simply wait until you outbreed Whites to the point that you have just as many people or more.  In that case you will be such a large voting block that you can vote people in of your ethnicity purely based on your numbers. You can choose to do your best and wait to have sex and children until you are married.  You can choose to be a faithful spouse and good father or mother to your children. You can choose to educate yourself and live within your means.  You can choose to set yourself apart by how hard you work and not blame everything that goes wrong in your life or every missed opportunity you have on “White privilege”.

Or you can take the same route that the Palestinians take with the Israelis.

In the Gaza strip where Hamas rules, they have presided over the complete failure of then electric grid as well as water and sewage infrastructure.  They also have a 50 percent unemployment rate.  Yet despite their utter failure to manage a society Hamas is highly popular with the people it rules.  Do you know how they are so popular? The same way many minority leaders in the US are popular today.  They blame others for the suffering of their people.  They blame the Israelis.  They blame the inability of Palestinians to return to lands they once held in what is now Israel.

In the same way we have minority leaders in the United States today preaching to young minorities that the White man is holding them back.  If the White man would just give them their due then all their problems would be solved.  But this is a lie minority friends.  It is a bold faced lie.

The Case for Christian Nationalism

Were the American founders wrong for not building in safe guards against secularism? Is there a way to have freedom of religion and at the same time guard against secularism? I believe the answer to both these questions is YES.

Nations from the dawn of human civilization have been built on three pillars much like the three legged stool I have pictured at the top of this article.  These three pillars are a common religion, a common ethnicity and a common language.  The more diversity you have in any of these three areas the weaker the unity of your nation becomes eventually leading to its collapse.

In my previous article “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?” I gave this quote by Victor Davis Hanson from his article in National Review entitled “America: History’s Exception”:

 “The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity.

Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…

Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.

Vast ethnically diverse empires such as those of the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans, and the Soviets used deadly force to keep their bickering ethnic factions in line — and from killing each other.” [1]

In that article on ethno nationalism I argued that America’s change from laws protecting ethnic homogeneity (via the 1790 Naturalization Act) have led to a weakening of the American nation and fractures along ethnic lines.  Why? Because even though we have tried to stamp out racial hatred (which is good thing) you cannot stamp out racial clustering in other words, racial preference.  I showed statistics in my article “Is Self-Segregation a Sin?” that the vast majority of people of all ethnicities prefer to marry and live around people of their own ethnic group and this natural racial preference among human beings will inevitably lead to division in a nation.

So this common ethnicity, one of the three pillars that is crucial to any nation’s unity, has been badly weakened over the last century and it is continuing to degrade more each year.

In this article I want to talk about another pillar that is essential to national unity and that is common religion.

Why America’s Founding Fathers Wanted Freedom of Religion

The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“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 the government for a redress of grievances.”

The founding fathers gave us this to protect the people from state churches like the Anglican Church in England as well as state churches that existed in the American colonies.

One the greatest champions for religious freedom and separation of Church and State was a Baptist minister name John Leland(1754-1841). Hundreds of Baptist ministers had been imprisoned throughout the colonies for “disturbing the peace” or in other words not going along with the Anglican or Congregational state churches in various colonies.  John Leland brought the plight of these Baptist ministers to the attention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  James Madison had already heard of Baptist imprisonments in Virginia and was fighting for their freedom in there.

In order to secure the support of Leland and his many Baptist followers in Virginia, James Madison had to promise Leland that he would add specific protections for religious liberty to the new Constitution.  This is why Leland is credited by many historians as the greatest influence of religious liberty on Madison and therefore the first amendment.

In 1790, a year before the first amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was ratified Leland wrote:

“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” [2]

In 1791 Leland again wrote:

“Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government.” [3]

And in 1804 Leland Wrote:

“Experience, the best teacher, has informed us, that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity, has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did.” [4]

Were America’s Founding Father’s Secularists?

While men like Thomas Jefferson and John Leland were champions of religious liberty they were not the advocates of a purely secular government as some of their statements have made them look.  We need to look at their actions, not just their words to see what they truly meant.

In a speech he gave at at Beeson Divinity School on May 2nd, 2000  Richard Land made the following historical observation comparing Jefferson and Leland’s words on separation of church and state to their actions:

“Clearly, Jefferson saw no contradiction between his concept of church and state separation and having a gift personally presented to him at the White House with a promise of continued prayer by a prominent Baptist preacher on the morning of the very day he wrote to the Danbury Baptist ministers, and less than 48 hours later attending a Sunday morning worship service where that minister — John Leland — preached from the Speaker’s podium in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives” [5]

Were there secularists among the founders like Thomas Paine? Yes.  But the truth is it can be easily proven by their diaries, personal letters and public statements that the vast majority of the founders were indeed Christians.

In response to Thomas Pain’s “Age of Reason” John Adams wrote:

“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” [6]

And Adams was not the only founder to attack Paine’s secularist views.   Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, Charles Carrol, Patrick Henry, William Paterson and John Jay were amongst just a few of many founders who condemned Paine for his work. Zephaniah Swift stated at the time the following of Paine’s work:

“He has the impudence and effrontery to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” [7]

The Error of the First Amendment

As much as Americans cherish the first amendment there was a fundamental flaw in design which came from men like John’s Leland’s “experience”.   As we previously noted Leland said that “Experience, the best teacher” regarding his views of the separation of church and state and religious liberty.  We also gave his statement that “…Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing”. 

The problem with this thinking, which also heavily influenced Madison, is that it opened the door open for secularism to poison American culture.  If Leland could witness what happened over the next two centuries and “experiance” what happened as a result of having no protection for Christianity or Christian principles in this country I think he might have reconsidered his positions.

The first amendment – which was meant to protect freedom of religion and conscience was actually turned into a weapon by secularists to drive Christians from the public square.

After reading much about his life and what he fought for I can see where Leland was coming from.  His intentions were good.  I agree 100% with Leland that what the Anglican and Congregational state churches did to Baptists and other Christians was wrong.  But Leland and the founding fathers he influenced went too far in the matter of religious liberty.

They could have put protections in for the freedom to practice the Christian faith according to one’s conscience and they could have clearly outlawed  state churches.

They could have put moral laws in the Constitution straight from the Scriptures like do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not commit fornication as well as protections for family rights and male headship while protecting the right of Christian churches to assemble and worship as they pleased.

Instead they set up a system of government that allowed for secularism, atheism and religious pluralism to eventually erode the unity of the nation.  This erosion of common religion among Americans will eventually lead to the end of the great experiment the founders began more than two centuries ago.

The Founding Fathers Believed Our Rights Came From God Not Government

The rights of government, the church and individuals and families do not come from government, they come from God as our American founding fathers so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved”

The founders referred to God as our “Creator” from whom our rights come and the “Supreme judge” who will judge our intentions and actions. They were absolutely right in this regard that governments are not the source of rights but instead God instituted government to secure the rights he had given. The Scriptures state:

“4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Romans 13:4 (KJV)

Therefore we can rightly say that Government is there to protect our God given rights and punish those who violate the God given rights of others.  It is not the purpose of Government to grant new rights or nullify rights that God grants.  When a government becomes “destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

What “Creator” and “Supreme Judge” did the American Founders Have in Mind?

Decades before the American Revolution a young John Adams wrote this in his diary:

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!” [8]

Then in the decades that followed the birth of our nation this great American founder stated the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” [9]

 

What Can We as Bible Believing Christians Do?

As believers we must take a page from the story of Joshua in the Bible.

“14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:14-15 (KJV)

America and the Western world have forsaken the God of the Bible, the God of their ancestors, for the false gods of emotionalism, feminism, secularism, humanism, egalitarianism, materialism and education.

We as believers in the God of the Bible must stand faithful in the midst of a faithless generation and follow Joshua’s example that no matter what others did – he and his family would serve the Lord.

But we must also take another page from earlier in Joshua’s story.  When the children of Israel were looking to build a new nation a powerful city lay as an obstacle in their path and that was the city of Jericho.  In Joshua chapter 6 we see that God told them he would destroy the walls of Jericho and all they had to do was follow his commands one of which was to shout:

“2 And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. 3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. 5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.”

Joshua 6:2-5 (KJV)

We know from the rest of the story that the Israelites followed God’s commands and God caused the walls of Jericho to fall flat to the ground.

In the same way we as Bible believing Christians must shout out against the wickedness of secular humanists, feminists and others who oppose the knowledge of God in our culture. Sadly we must even shout out against those who claim to be Christians but stand in lock step with secularists in opposing a Biblical worldview.  We cannot simply stand by in the shadows.  God calls us to be a light in a dark place.

Secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism and a host of other false gods have fortified themselves much like Jericho did.  They control the courts, legislatures and media.  Only God can take down the stronghold of these false gods that are entrenched in our society.  But we must do our part as Christians to call it out until he does and when he does we as Bible believing Christians need to be prepared to go in after God brings the walls down.

The Fatal Flaw of Secular Humanism That Will Bring Down Its Walls

Below is the definition of Secular Humanism from secularhumanism.org:

“Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.

Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.

Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.” [10]

Obviously the most glaring flaw of secular humanism is its denial of the existence of God, the creator of all things including humanity.  But another flaw that comes from the denial of our creator is that secular humanists fail to recognize the natural consequences for not following God’s owner’s manual – the Bible.

It is absolutely true that God instituted the spheres of “family, church and state” and gave each of them different “controls”.  When you remove the controls of these three spheres that God created in any nation eventually that nation will fall.

It would be like having a car and going into the engine and switching all the spark plugs around and switching other plugs for various components and then expecting the engine to function properly.  If you don’t follow the design of the car, eventually it will fail.

A critically important control for any functioning nation is the control of family. If parents fail to exercise their God mandated control over their children or husbands fail to exercise their God mandated control over their wives this will cause any nation to eventually crumble.  Marriage and family form the bedrock of both churches and nations – without strong marriages and families neither of these other institutions will continue to exist.

While parents today still exercise a small amount of control over their children, husbands for the most part have completely given up all control over their wives.  They no longer lead their wives, teach their wives or discipline their wives.

The result is that because men allowed feminism to take control of our nations and because men ceded their ownership of and responsibility over both their wives and daughters we have nations in the Western world that are in moral chaos.

Marriage rates have plummeted since the early 20th century, divorce has skyrocketed, birth rates have declined and of the fewer births we have almost half of them that are born out of wedlock.

This will eventually culminate in the fall of not only the United States, but all of the Western World.  Another way of putting this is – when men abandoned their control of women (their wives and daughters) they broke God’s design for this world. They took their hands off the wheel of the car that is civilization and now that car is headed toward a cliff and eventual destruction.

When will the America as We Know It Fall?

The Roman Empire fell about two hundred years after it embraced multiracialism and multiculturalism and it lost its identity as an Italian Roman empire.  I predict that the time line will be similar for the United States.  The United States began to lose its identity as a nation of northern white European protestant Christians near the end of the 19th century.  It was not long after this that secular humanism, multiculturalism and feminism secured strong footholds in American culture.  So if we use that as our starting point it is most likely that America as a nation will crumble by the end of the 21st century or by beginning of the 22nd century.

The causes of this collapse could come from any these factors:

  1. Racial Wars – As Whites in America begin to lose their majority numbers and Africans, Hispanics and other ethnic groups rise this growing diversity of ethnicities will lead to more division and eventually war.
  2. Secular Humanists vs Christians – As Secular humanists seek to push the Christian faith further and further from American culture eventually lines will be crossed that cause Christians in mass to practice civil disobedience and then eventually military revolt against the secular powers.
  3. The falling fertility rate – America’s fertility rate is 1.84 which is well beneath the minimum 2.1 to 2.33 that needed just to keep the population rate from falling.

The third reason, falling fertility rates, is the factor which I believe will most likely be the final straw that breaks the back of Western Civilization.  Consider these other countries that have even worse fertility rates than the United States:

WorldBank.org reports that Germany’s fertility rate is 1.5, Japan is at 1.5,  the UK is at 1.8 and Greece is 1.3.  [11]  Below is a chart from WorldBank.org that displays the sharp decline in births across the world.

A recent article from Bloomberg.com actually applauds the decline of its own species:

“So far, the prophets of overpopulation have been defeated by technology. But human ingenuity alone can never deliver a final victory in the battle to feed the world — eventually, population growth will overwhelm the Earth’s ability to provide calories. That’s why in order to put Malthus and Ehrlich finally to rest, a second component is needed — lower fertility rates. To save both the environment and themselves, humans must have fewer kids…

The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary.” [12]

Of all the sins Western Civilization has committed at the behest of secular humanists, environmentalists and feminists – the sin against God’s command “to be fruitful and multiply” is most likely to be the cause of their undoing.

It is a simple matter of math and the law of sowing and reaping.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Galatians 6:7 (KJV)

If you sow less children, you will have less children.  And if you have less children and continue to have less children eventually your civilization withers up and dies.

And why is a shrinking human population a bad thing? Well think of it this way.  How will a business do if it continues year over year to have less customers? It will die. How will a government do if it continues to bring in less taxes each year with the same rates of spending? It will collapse.  People don’t think about this.  A social safety net is predicated on the fact that you have a larger population of young people to help care for the needs of its older population as well as its poor and disabled.  If the younger population is only a fraction of the size of the generations that came before it the social safety cannot be sustained.

So when will world population numbers start to plunge? The approximate year is given at OverPopulationIsAMyth.com:

“The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) is the most reliable source of population statistics in the world, which is why we use their numbers for our videos. And, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.” [13]

So in 27 years we will see the world wide population of the earth begin to decline matching the already declining numbers of Western nations.  2045 will most likely be the beginning of the end for America Western Civilization which will most likely fall by the end of the 21st century.

The New Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics

Out of the ashes of the fall of Western Civilization, I propose that Christians could introduce new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics.

These new nations like the United States would be a Republic where the rights of both the government and the people are limited by a core set of laws much like our current Constitution.  As I said previously and as the American founders once said – our rights as individuals come from God and God has spoken these rights through his Word, the Bible.  Therefore this New Constitution would be based explicitly on Biblical moral law  or in other words this nation would be a theonomy. This of course would take into account progressive revelation in the Bible and the realization that the Old Covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant.

These new types of Christian nations would not be theocracies– as a theocracy is directly ruled by God through his prophets and only God himself can institute a theocracy as he did with Israel.  Also unlike the totalitarian theonomic military dictatorship in the popular fictional “Hand Maid’s Tale” these new nations would still be ruled democratically but within the limits of Biblical law upon which the government’s constitution would be based.

Totalitarian forms of civil government, even Christian forms of totalitarian civil government, violate the purposes for which God designed civil government.  Much like we in America currently have three separate but equal branches of government with different rights and powers so too God set up three separate spheres of government with those being the family, the church and the state.

And if you examine the Scriptures closely you will see that the most powerful human authorities God established are those of the father and husband with the husband being most powerful of all.  The “power” I speak of with husbands and fathers is that they have power and control over the personal decisions of their wives and children.   The government does not have this type of power and neither do church authorities.

But none of these three spheres of authority may usurp power over the others. Each must respect the limits and powers of the other.

One of the most important parts of these new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics would be safe guards placed in their new Biblically based constitutions.

These constitutions would guard against the rise of secular humanism or feminism ever being able to rise to power again in these nations.  To do this, there would be a certain list of interpretations and applications of the Bible which no law and no amendment to this constitution could ever change.

Some example laws for Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics

Below are some example laws I could think of just off the top of my head.  I am sure there could be many more. But the most important parts of these laws would be to protect the institution of marriage and by extension the family unit which forms the building blocks for any nation.

  1. The rights of men to exercise their Christian faith and worship the God of the Bible according to their own consciences shall not be infringed upon by any government entity. The freedom to interpret and apply the Bible and principles and doctrines of the Christian faith are between a man and God. However, in order to guard against certain heresies that would undermine marriage and the family a limited number of interpretations and applications of the Scriptures must be adhered to by all who live within the boundaries of this nation.  Those interpretations and applications are spelled out in the points that follow.
  2. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and the wife is to submit to her husband in everything except if he commands her to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
  3. Children are to obey their parents as long as their parents do not command them to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
  4. Women are the property of men. This means husbands exercise full ownership over their wives, and fathers exercise full ownership of their daughters and sons. Their ownership over their sons would terminate upon the son reaching the age of manhood.
  5. A man may not marry a woman without her father’s permission. If her father is dead or the woman is a widow or divorced he should seek out another male relative of the woman under whose authority she has placed herself. Only in rare cases where a woman presents proof to a fellow kinsman defender that her father is unlawfully holding her back from all marriage may a judge decide to forfeit the rights of the father over his daughter.
  6. If a father or mother are found guilty of engaging in incestuous relations with any of their children they shall be banned from seeing their children again as well as punished in other ways as the judges see fit. If the guilty party is the father, then the judge shall grant temporary ownership of the children to the mother until she can find a new husband.
  7. A woman may not hold any position which gives her authority over men whether it be public office, in the work place, the church or any other place in society.
  8. Only adult men who are professing Christians may vote in elections. A woman, whether she is a professing Christian or not, may not vote in any election whether it be local, state or national elections or anything to do with church decision making.
  9. While all married women are under the authority of their husbands, previously married women whether they be widows or divorced should immediately place themselves back under the authority of their father or if he is dead they should find the closest adult male relative under whose authority they may find protection and guidance.
  10. Women may not own property and if a woman comes into an inheritance this inheritance comes under the ownership of her husband. If she is without a husband, then this inheritance would remain in a trust until she is wed to a husband to whom she may give herself and her inheritance.
  11. Only women who make vows of celibacy in service to God may enter higher education. Even then their higher education will be restricted to fields which involve caring for the sick like nursing, nurses aids, medical assistants or the care and education of children such as elementary school teachers.
  12. If a man willfully and in full neglect of his duties fails to provide his wife with food, clothing and shelter or denies his wife her conjugal rights in marriage she will seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that willful and intentional neglect in any of these areas has been committed by the husband the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce.  If the neglect extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
  13. If a man abuses his wife or children by causing serious bodily injury or life threatening injuries to them or if he willfully places his family in life threatening positions in neglect of his duty to protect them the wife may seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that the husband rather than protecting his family from harm, has actually placed them in harm by his actions the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce.  If the abuse extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
  14. A man may only divorce his wife for adultery or his wife’s denial of his conjugal rights. In either of these cases the woman is sent away without anything but the clothing on her back and she retains no rights to her children as her husband maintains full ownership of them.  If adultery is the cause of the divorce, the husband may ask a judge to impose a prison sentence as the judge sees it upon his wife.
  15. The right of men to keep and bear arms to secure their persons, their wives, their children, their homes and their other possessions may not be infringed upon by any government entity.
  16. The right of men to pursue through work or ingenuity their own private property including but not limited to lands and women shall not be infringed by any government entity.
  17. The government shall encourage the formation of private charities for various types of assistance (food, medical care and housing) to the poor. All government approved charities will be required to prove that at least 90 percent of all the funds they take in go directly helping the poor and no more than 10 percent goes to their overhead. Churches will be highly encouraged to participate as private charities. Still penalties and criminal prosecution may be pursued against groups that act as charities but keep a large part of the proceeds for themselves.
  18. Each man must present proof when he pays his taxes each year that he has donated at least 3.5 percent of his gross income to charitable causes whether it be a local church, a local soup kitchen, homeless shelters or some other cause which helps the poor. If the money was donated to his church, he must prove that the money went to help the poor. Charitable giving to support the operations of the church and its ministries to the poor must be separated.   Failure to donate at least 3.5 percent of one’s income to the poor through various approved charities will result in a 10 percent tax penalty collected by the government. These tax penalties for failure to give to the poor will be redistributed to approved charitable organizations.
  19. The government may only tax for the purposes of providing for law enforcement, public education, public infrastructure, and national defense. The only exception to this rule is the tax penalty allowed for failure to give to charitable organizations that help the poor. Other than this the government is restricted from taxing for the purposes of redistribution of wealth between various income groups.
  20. All public education is to be conducted in support of Biblical teachings. Only professing Christians may teach religion, philosophy or history programs. If a non-Christian teaches another type of course such as business, science or engineering they may not teaching opinions or philosophies which contradict the Christian faith.
  21. While no one may be forced to become a Christian or to attend a Christian church, all citizens of the nation must follow the moral laws of the Bible and also the laws of this nation which find their basis and authority in the Bible.
  22. Non-Christians including those who adhere to other faiths or those who adhere to no faith at all will be tolerated in small numbers provide they do not present a threat to the unity of the Christian faith of the nation. If the number of non-Christians rises to levels which the government deems too high or any one group of non-Christians disturbs the peace and unity in a local area, state or throughout the nation government authorities shall have power to remedy this situation through imprisonment or deportation to a non-Christian nation.

A Word to Non-Christians Reading This

If you are a Muslim reading this then what I have wrote here will make a lot of sense since the vast majority of Muslims do not believe in freedom of religion in a nation as most Americans believe in. But to secular humanists reading this the questions they will ask are “what if you took these same rules and applied them to Muslim nation, Hindu nation or some other non-Christian nation? Does the ideology that a nation is built around common religion, common ethnicity and common language still apply to them?

Before I give the answer to your question I want to share with you a statement from the Apostle Paul that is found in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

I Corinthians 9:20-21 (KJV)

So in the words of the Apostle Paul – I am going to answer your questions on your level as a secular humanist (one who is does not believe in the law of God).

The answer to your questions is YES.  The same formula of common religion, common ethnicity and common language applies to all nations whether the majority of its citizens are Christian or not.  If the common religion, common ethnicity and common language of a nation is not protected by its government that nation will eventually fall.  All three are necessary for the survival, stability and security of any nation.

I have worked alongside many Muslims and Hindus over the years as a software developer.  While I consider their faiths to be false because I consider the Bible’s description of the character of God and the Christian faith to be far superior to those faiths, I will admit in the vast majority of cases they have strong marriages and a strong family ethic.  If a religion, even a false religion, promotes the sanctity marriage and family and a nation protects that religion as the common religion of the people it will in most cases lead to a more stable and secure nation.

Secular humanism, which in my opinion is actually a religion of sorts with the natural world and humanity as its god, does not pass this test.  Secular humanism leads to the weakening of marriages and the family unit.  Therefore even if a nation decided that it would be a secular humanist nation and it outlawed all religion (as many communist countries did) trying to unite the people around the common philosophy of secular humanism it would eventually fail.  The reason is that secular humanism by overemphasizing individualism and trying to take off the controls of the family actually weakens marriage and the family and in doing so it undermines its own society.

Conclusion

We can look back to the history of nations and see that nations that are not united around common religion, common ethnicity and common language ultimately fail.  Not only must nations share and protect these things but they must also promote the sanctify of marriage and the family as the building blocks of society, otherwise they too will perish.

The Christian faith and the Christian Bible are vastly superior to all other religions and ideologies in giving us a blue print for the sustainability of marriage and the family and thus the sustainability of nations.

The Bible tells us in Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord… but it also tells us in the book of Acts 5:29 that We ought to obey God rather than men. Only a Democratic Christian Theonomic Republic whose Constitution and laws are founded in the Bible and which protects the Christian faith from non-Christian interference can allow Christians to live in a culture where they never have to practice Acts 5:29.

America will not be an exception to history’s rule and neither will the rest of the Western world.  We as Christians must prepare our children who can then prepare our grandchildren for the future that is coming unless God directly intervenes in this world before that time.

UPDATE 4/18/2017

I have added some additional quotes(with references below) to statements from John Leland who was a highly influential Baptist preacher. He sought religious liberty and protections after Baptists in the colonies had been so badly treated by the state Anglican and Congregational churches.  He was one of the greatest influences on  Madison and the other founders in creating the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

References

[1] V. Davis, “America: History’s Exception”, National Review, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436347/america-melting-pot-immigrant-culture-made-country-great.

[2] John Leland, arranged by L.F. Greene, “The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland: Including Some Events in His Life”, G.W. Wood, 1845  [Available as Free Ebook Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=bMAiAAAAMAAJ&#v=onepage&q&f=false. Pg. 118

[3] Ibid, Pg. 184

[4] Ibid, Pg. 278

[5] Dwayne Hastings, “Religious freedom champion John Leland also active in public policy, Land says”, Baptist Press, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.bpnews.net/5785/religious-freedom-champion-john-leland-also-active-in-public-policy-land-says.

[6] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
[7] Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.
[8] John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

[9] Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

[10] “What Is Secular Humanism?” SecularHumanism.org. [Online]. Available: https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260

[11] “Fertility rate, total (births per woman)” Data.Worldbank.Org, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

[12] N. Smith, “The Population Bomb Has Been Defused”, Bloomberg.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation

[13] “Episode 5: 7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax?” OverPopulationIsAMyth.com [Online]. Available: https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/

Do Christian Values Cause Sexual Harassment?

With the revelations of famous men acting badly toward women and the rise of the MeToo# movement we are having a national conversation about the causes of sexual harassment.  Some have made a startling accusation that it is the “toxic” system of Christian values which is at the root of this evil behavior. The sad part is many Christians in America have been so indoctrinated by feminism that they would not even recognize that Christian values are being attacked.

In an article he wrote for Inc.com entitled Yes, We Can Defeat Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Here Are 6 Powerful Ways to Do It Marcel Schwantes says the fight against sexual harassment is “about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking”:

“Both men and women of good conscience are fearlessly acknowledging the elephant in the room — the disturbing, age-old trend of men in power taking advantage of their status to prey on women (and other men) working below them.

Therefore, the fight is just as much about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking, and the thinking of sick minds. In the BBC article, Eden King exposes a root cause of sexual harassment: “A belief that women are inferior to men, the belief that men should have power over women,” and, she adds, a belief that “men should be aggressors and women should be gatekeepers.” The process of shifting mindsets doesn’t start in training rooms. King says it should begin in the earliest days of childhood education and development.”

Do Christians believe in “toxic” and “false” values that lead to sexual harassment?

Eden King lists these 4 values that she believes are false and Marcel Schwantes calls “toxic” ways of thinking that actually lead to the sexual harassment of women:

  1. “A belief that women are inferior to men”
  2. “the belief that men should have power over women”
  3. “men should be aggressors”
  4. “women should be gatekeepers”

So let’s now examine each of these beliefs as to their whether they are true or false and whether they lead to sexual harassment or actually would help to prevent it.

“A belief that women are inferior to men”

“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

Women are equal to men in their humanity as we all have the blood of Adam (both men and women).  But women are not equal to men in strength and many other attributes. Women were designed to be weaker than men so that they would need men as mankind needs God.  Believing women are inferior to men does not mean we do not honor women.  But as the Scriptures tell us we give honor to women as the weaker vessels God designed them to be.

So, this first supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  This means this value that has been held by civilizations even without the Bible for thousands of years is actually a TRUE value and a righteous value. Accepting this truth has not lead most men to prey on women, but rather it leads men to protect women.

“the belief that men should have power over women”

“3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God…

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I Corinthians 11:3 & 10 (KJV)

The Bible tells that God’s order in this world is God the father is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman and that woman should have a sign of authority or a sign that there is a power over her head which is man.

Again, this second supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  This means this value that has been held by civilizations even without the Bible for thousands of years is actually a TRUE value and a righteous value. Accepting this truth has not lead most men to prey on women, but rather it leads men to desire to lead women.

“men should be aggressors”

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight”

Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

“10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (KJV)

This third supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  The Bible tells us that God has made men aggressive by nature.  Man’s aggressive nature when it is used for sinful purposes can cause great destruction and evil.  But when man channels his aggressive nature toward godly purposes this helps him to accomplish great things – including taking a wife.

Accepting this truth that men are aggressors or initiators in life is not something that should cause men to harass women or otherwise act badly toward them.  Instead this truth that men are aggressors should lead men to channel their aggression into their work so they can be successful in their business endeavors to be able to provide a home for a future wife. It should also cause them to aggressively seek out a godly woman who wants to fulfill her God given purpose as a wife and mother.

“women should be gatekeepers”

“20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:20-22 (KJV)

Finally, this fourth supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  The Bible tells us that God has in fact assigned the role of gatekeeper to women regarding their sexual purity. In the Scriptures if a woman lost her virginity before marriage it could relegate her to a life of celibacy and if she hid the loss of her virginity it could cost her life.

While we are no longer under the civil penalties of the Old Testament law – the moral law remains.  God has given women a serious and lifelong task to protect their bodies and keep them only for their future or current husbands.  Her husband is the only one that she may and in fact must allow through the gate to access the pleasures of her body.

Accepting this truth that women are tasked by God to be gatekeepers of their sexual purity does not excuse men from acting badly toward woman. But this is why God created woman’s sexual nature to be so different than man’s. Men are designed by God to be primarily physically driven toward sex and only secondarily relationally driven.  Because of this a man can very easily have sex with a woman regardless of their relational status.  But God in his perfect design of woman for man created her with a relational    sexual nature that causes her to only desire to give herself to one man and one man only – her husband.  She is literally built with a self-protection mechanism that protects her for her man.

Conclusion

I could not agree more with Marcel Schwantes that returning to values would help to greatly reduce sexual harassment in the workplace.  However, I completely disagree with him as to what values we need to return to.  The values he and Eden King calls “false” and places as the root of the evils of sexual harassment are in fact the values that could greatly reduce the sexual harassment of women if we as a society returned them.

The “values” Schwantes and King believe we should return to do not find their basis in the Word of God, but rather in Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution which brought us these destructive changes to society:

  1. Women leaving their gatekeeper role and engaging in extramarital sex
  2. Women seeking higher education while delaying marriage
  3. Women putting off having children even after marriage
  4. Women having financial independence from men
  5. Women rebelling against their subordinate role in marriage and society

The truth is, it is not Biblical values that have lead us to the sexual harassment crisis our culture finds itself in today, but rather it is the values of Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution which are the true root of the problem.

How men can protect themselves from being accused of sexual harassment

In the wake of a flood of sexual harassment charges that have been waged against famous men in recent months and the resulting #MeToo movement men need to truly examine how they can guard themselves from being accused of sexual harassment.

I am not against women coming forward to let people know about men who have sexually assaulted them.  If my 15-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted I would want to know and I would want her to report this to the police.

But I also have two older sons who are young adult men and I have two younger sons that will one day be men. I worry for both my daughter and my sons.  I don’t want my daughter to put herself in a position where a man could assault her but I equally don’t want my sons to put themselves in a position where they could be falsely accused by a woman of sexual assault.

This is Personal for Me

This issue of sexual harassment hits very close to home for me.  And no for all my detractors I have never ever sexually harassed or abused any person. I have never been accused of sexual harassment.   But the reason this hits close to home for me is because of three events that happened in my life. One of these events I have previously shared a little information on before but the other two I have not.  All of these are deeply personal to me but I feel in light of recent events it is time to share them.

When I was 9 years old my two 13 year old sisters(they are twins) falsely accused my father of sexual abuse.   They did this as part of a broad set of claims they brought against my mother and father about being physically abused. I along with my brother who was 8 at the time were removed from our parents home along with our sisters by social services. I spent several months in foster care while my parents were thoroughly investigated by social workers.

Just a little background on my parents.  They were strict fundamental baptists and they did spank us sometimes with a belt and other times with a paddle. But they did not abuse us.  They loved us and they were raising as they thought was right before God.

The social workers interviewed me, my brother and my sisters many times over several months.  My brother and I were pretty consistent about what we experienced and we did not report anything besides normal spankings from our parents.  My sisters on the other hand kept having inconsistencies in their stories.  Their stories would change every time they were interviewed.  Eventually they admitted that they lied about my father sexually abusing them and my mother physically abusing them because they thought my parents were “strict religious nuts”.   They just wanted out of my parents house.  It was also determined that my sisters had bipolar and schizophrenia disorders.

My brother and I were allowed to come back home to our parents and my sisters stayed in foster care until they were adults. The decision was mutual as they did not want to come home and my parents did not want them to come back home after they ripped our family apart and accused my father and mother of such horrible things.  Years later when they were adults they apologized to my parents and restored their relationship with them.

When I was 14 years old I was molested by a 17 year old boy in our youth group. He befriended me and I thought he was really cool. We would talk about video games that he and I both liked.  He would drive me to the Burger King at the corner near our church and buy me food. We used to sit up in the balcony of our baptist church where not a lot of people sat and at first it was just him slapping my thighs with his hands.  Then he would just put his hand on my thigh without slapping it and I would move away from him.  And finally one Sunday during church he actually grabbed my crotch. That was it.  I got up and never spoke to him again.  He knew what he did and I knew what he did.

Why didn’t I tell anyone? Was it because I was ashamed?  No – although I was very disgusted by the homosexual aspect of it.   I did not tell anyone because I felt despite him being a few years older than me that he was my peer.  It was not as though he was a teacher at my school or my boss at the restaurant I worked for. I did not want to ruin his life.  I felt him loosing my friendship was punishment enough and perhaps it would teach him not to do that again.

Another reason I did not try to get him in trouble was because I knew that if he were a 17 year old girl that I was friends with and a 17 year old girl touched me on the crotch I would not have been bothered by it.  Yes – I was a normal heterosexual 14 year old boy and no I was not sinless and most 14 year old boys would have to fight every instinct in their body to push a 17 year old girl’s hand off their crotch.

One other thing I want to say about what happened to me when I was 14.  I know I would have felt differently if I felt trapped or held down by that 17 year old boy or if he would have been someone much older than me such as a parent or teacher.  So I do not mean to diminish others who have been touched in similar ways under different situations.

When I was a young adult man in my early twenties my mom felt it was time to finally share with me a painful event that happened to her as a young teenage girl.  She was raped by her own grandfather. It so traumatized her and warped her view of men and sexuality that for the first few years of her marriage to my Dad they had a very dysfunctional sex life.  She gave my Dad sex anytime he wanted – but she did not enjoy it and she did her best to hide it from him.  It took time for her to finally be able to enjoy sex with my father knowing how much he loved and care for her and to move past the hurt and trauma of what happened to her with her grandfather.

The reason I have shared these three major events in my life is to show that I understand sexual molestation from a personal perspective, the effects of sexual assault from my mother’s perspective and the effects of being falsely accused of sexual assault from my father’s perspective.

And do you know which one these three events in my life grieved me the most of all? It was what I saw it do to my mother and father – especially my father when my sisters lied about them.  It tore him up. It tore me up. I did not really know or understand the sexual aspect of the charges until a few later when I was a teenager and my Dad told me.  I remember having supervised visitation with him and my mom when I was in foster care and it was some of the only times in my life I saw tears in my father’s eyes.

This is why I can honestly say I understand both sides of this issue.  It is why I am passionate about protecting my daughter from sexual predators and my sons from women who would lie to hurt them.

The Evil in Men’s Hearts Cannot be Legislated or Taught Away

The Bible says:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)

This is why if we as Christians truly understand what the Bible says about human nature when we hear of murder, mass murder, rape and molestation we know that no law and no education program will eliminate this behavior in mankind.

What we can do is protect ourselves against the inevitability of man’s evil nature – including our own.  In Romans 13:1-5 we see that the primary purpose which God has assigned to human government is to protect the people and punish evil doers.  In Nehemiah 4:14 men are encouraged to “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses”.

So from a Biblical perspective, both the government and husbands and fathers have a responsibility to protect our families from those who would harm them.

This is why the answer to stopping mass shootings is not to outlaw guns or making more “gun free zones”.  This just makes it easier for evil men to kill more people. The answer is to account for evil men by having MORE citizens carry guns, not less.  This means we should have trained and armed citizens at every church and school in America and every other place that might be a considered a “soft target” for evil men.  You can’t have a mass shooting if the shooter gets shot after the first few bullets.  But when everyone in the building has no guns they are just sitting ducks waiting to be killed.

This same concept applies to sexual sin.

The “Romans 13:14 Rule” Protects us From Sexual Sin

An important thing that we must remember as Christians is sexual harassment, rape, molestation and sex outside of marriage between a man and woman are all forms of fornication.  It is all sexual immorality in God’s eyes and we must guard against it both in our hearts as well as from others.

Vice President Pence took a beating in the press a while back for his rule that he will not dine alone with other women unless his wife is present.  Billy Graham had a similar rule in that he would never allow himself to be alone with a woman that was not his blood relative.

The “Pence Rule” and the “Graham Rule” are actually based on a much older rule found in the Scriptures:

 “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof”

Romans 13:14 (KJV)

The phrase “and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” means “Do not put yourself in a position where you might be tempted to sin”.  I would even expand that principle further and a say we should not put ourselves in any position that would allow us to be tempted to sin against God or someone else OR put ourselves in a position that might allow someone else to sin against us.

In my article “12 Ways to transform modern dating into Biblical dating” I argued against the modern practice of dating and instead for the traditional practice of courting.  A large part of my argument for going back to courting is that dating makes “provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof”. It puts men and women alone together for various lengths of time and over time it will inevitably lead to sexual temptation. On the other hand, courting ensures that a woman always has family members with her when she is with a man to ensure her safety as well as to help keep her and the man she is courting from sexual temptation.

If we as men were to practice the Romans 13:14 rule or what has been called “The Graham Rule” and most recently “The Pence Rule” it would protect us against our own sinful natures as well as those of the women around us.  It would protect us from being tempted to sin with women who are not our wives and it would protect us from false allegations of sexual assault by women.

The “Pence Rule” Actually Hurts Women?

Tara Isabella Burton wrote an article for Vox.com entitled “Former Trump adviser says the “Pence rule” would have protected women from Weinstein. He’s wrong” asserting that the “Pence rule” actually hurts women:

“Likewise, the Pence/Graham rule can effectively ensure that the men who make a public point of following it are likewise “above suspicion.” The rule preserves their reputation, not so-called female virtue, and functions on appearances, not fact.

But we shouldn’t mistake the rule’s efficacy for unselfishness. It is a completely self-serving maxim, designed to protect men against women, and not the other way around. It does little for the women whose careers are stymied by a lack of access to good mentors and peers. A system in which private male-female interaction is treated as an automatic “red flag” is one that penalizes women for existing. In these scenarios, women may be more protected from harassment — just as their male counterparts are more protected from the specter of spurious allegations — but they are likewise barred from interactions that might benefit them professionally. Meanwhile, their male colleagues and superiors would suffer no such professional backlash, especially since men in the entertainment industry already tend to have powerful positions.”

Burton displays for us what the real problem is with our society – the worship of education and equality and the total denial of the reality of human nature and the differences between men and women.

Three Truths We Must Acknowledge About the #MeToo Movement

#1 – We must acknowledge the possibility that some of the sexual harassment and assault allegations we are hearing about in the news are true.
#2 – We must equally acknowledge the possibility that some of these sexual assault allegations are false.
#3 – This wave of allegations across industries and the political world will hinder women’s career advancements

Burton and other women may not like the third truth about this actually hindering women in their career advancements.  But there is a law of nature that applies to what is happening with the #MeToo movement and the flood of sexual assault allegations that are coming out.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

With all the allegations of sexual harassment coming out it will definitely have an impact on women’s careers.  Many men whether in Hollywood, the business world or the political world will think twice about hiring  female subordinates. Corporations may put polices in place that forbid men and women from working alone together.

It is ironic that the #MeeToo movement and all the allegations of sexual assault against men may actually move us closer toward implementing the “Romans 13:14 rule” as a society for our own protection.  And from a Biblical gender roles perspective this is one good thing that will come out of this entire mess.