There is no other legitimate purpose for any human action than
the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
- Patriotism (advancing the
interests of a political coalition) is wrong;
- Humanism (advancing
your own personal interests) is wrong;
- Satanism (advancing demonic interests) is obviously wrong.
Since all human action runs to some purpose, if the purpose
is not the building of God's Kingdom, then it is to build a
rival Kingdom. There is no neutrality. The State cannot be
impartial and non-religious.
THERE IS NO
Let me illustrate this vital concept with a scenario so silly
you will never forget it.
Suppose the inspired Prophet Isaiah rises before the court
and says to his honor, "This prophet speaks in the Name of
God, Who has full authority - full, plenary, absolute,
unconditional legal, constitutional, ethical, moral, religious,
metaphysical, and ontological authority - to issue direct orders
to this court and expect them immediately to be obeyed, and this
God hereby orders this court to rub its tummy and pat its head
at the same time."
Now suppose the court replies that it will remain "
neutral " with regard to the Prophet's claimed
authority over the court. It will not deny the prophet's
claim, but neither will it affirm the prophet's claim
(and thereby risk an "establishment" of religion). The
Court will not render a decision on the issue of whether or not
the prophet's words do indeed have full, plenary, absolute,
unconditional authority over the court, but the court does
not begin rubbing its tummy and patting its head at the same
time. It is, most assuredly, denying the
prophet's claimed authority. (If the court accepted
the authority claimed by the Prophet, then it would surely act
obediently in terms of that revelation.) There is no
neutrality. The State must not attempt to be
"neutral." It must be faithful. The only other
alternative is disbelief and rebellion.
The God of the Hebrew-Christian Bible claims this kind of
authority. Everything we do has to be done Theocratically,
says this God. If the court claims religious
"neutrality" but does not obey the precepts of this religion,
it is in fact denying the authority and legitimacy of
In America, courts have been denying the authority of
Christianity, while simultaneously claiming
"neutrality." And with 4,000
babies being murdered each day in America, you can see that this
issue is not mere academic tummy-rubbing.
A government can be formed which says, "We deny the
authority of God, and affirm the authority of Satan." A
Christian cannot "support" such a government. A
government can also be formed that says "We deny the
authority of Satan, and affirm the absolute authority of
God." This would be remarkable, and deserving of the
Christian's support. But what are we to say about our own
government, which claims to be "neutral" with respect
to the all-encompassing and radical claims of Christ? Our nation
is actually affirming its own authority and the right of Man to
decide for himself what is good and what is evil. Can a system
based on the philosophy of autonomy and "neutrality"
expect the support of a Christian?
Clearly not. A non-Theocratic government is evil and leads to
- A government which does not claim to be in submission to
the God of the Bible teaches all of its citizens that God
need not be obeyed.
- A government which does not claim to be based on the Bible
is claiming that the Bible can be
- A government which claims that it need
not "choose this day whom you will serve" (God or
Baal), implicitly claims to be above
both, able to ignore the demands of both God and Baal
with impunity. Such a State claims to be God. To support
such a State is idolatry.
State Department deletes 'Mother, 'Father' from forms for more
correct 'Parent One, 'Parent Two'"
That's the headline from the Los Angeles Times.
Certainly more politically correct.
The Times reports,
Deleting the customary "mother" and
"father" terminology, says Jennifer Chrisler of the Family
Equality Council, "allows many different
types of families to be able to go and apply for a
passport for their child without feeling
like the government doesn’t recognize their family.”
Chrisler's group has long lobbied for the changes.
|"Different types of
||You know: all those
different types of families that don't have a
"mother" or a "father."
||The U.S. Supreme Court
relies on this kind of thinking. In SANTA
v. DOE, the Court ruled that
the school district cannot allow students to voluntarily
pray before a football game. Allowing them to pray would
convey some kind of "endorsement" of praying,
and this would make those who don't pray feel
"left out." Allowing voluntary prayer before a
because it sends the ancillary message to members of
the audience who are nonadherants “that they are
outsiders, not full members of the political
community, and an accompanying message to adherants
that they are insiders, favored members of the
political community.” [quoting Justice O'Connor in a
So now who feel's "left out?" Who is
There is no neutrality.
So does the government recognize traditional
Do those who see "Father" and "Mother" as a
part of their family feel included?
There is no neutrality. If the government does not promote
Biblical values, then the government is at war
I hope you are willing to accept these two propositions:
This was the theology of oaths which was codified into law by
the states for 180 years under the U.S. Constitution. Darwinism,
Communism, and Secularism gradually whittled
away at this Christian consensus until
1961, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso
v. Watkins ruled Christian test oaths
"unconstitutional." It now
appears that anyone who believes as the Founding Fathers did
concerning oaths (that they are sacred and must be made in the
Name of God) cannot take an oath - unless they
are willing to take an oath which conforms to the tenets of the
religion of Secular Humanism.
- This is a Christian
nation, or it was intended to be so by those who left
Europe to settle here. (The
evidence for this is too overwhelming for any but the
ignorant to deny.)
- For these people, all oaths were "test oaths." Only
Christians were allowed to hold public office, and it
was necessary to test their faith, to see if they were fit
Let me say something that may sound fanatical, but I think
you'll be persuaded by the evidence in the next section: This
decision ( Torcaso
v. Watkins ) is a hideously anti-Christian decision. It
is part of a chain of Court decisions that have worked
deliberately and systematically to kill Christian influence in
America. The antiChristian bias of the courts is both
astonishing and admittedly based on ignorance. Let me give you
just a sample of this willfully ignorant anti-Christian bias.
"So Help Me, God." or
Can a Christian be a Politician?
4. Now the court may explicitly deny
the plaintiff's authority and begin, sua sponte , to rub
the court's tummy and pat the court's head. But this is not obedience
. It is nothing less than rebellion. (Which explains why even
"good works" can be "filthy
rags.") The State must give glory to God ( 1
Corinthians 10:31). [Return to text]
5. It is also the case that they have been obeying
the precepts of a rival religion, that of Secular
Humanism. [Return to text]
6. Joshua 24:14-15. [Return
7. As a Calvinist, I am not overly enthused
with the Scottish rationalism and crypto-Deism
emerging in 18th- and 19th-century American theology. See
generally C. Singer, A Theological Interpretation of
American History 34-35 (1964):
The result of the growth of Deism and the breakdown of Calvinism
was quite a different intellectual temper from that which had
characterized Puritanism and colonial thought in general
during the seventeenth century. . . . Mosier has well observed
that this revolutionary age demanded that both the absolute
God and the absolute king must 'henceforth rule by the consent
of the governed. The God of Puritanism, stripped of His
antique powers, had no recourse but to enter as a weakened
prince into the temple of individualism and there to seek
refuge.' [note omitted] This sovereignty which He once
claimed, and was accorded by the Puritans, was now claimed by
man himself. . . . Most of the Revolutionary leaders desired
to retain the Christian ethic, but to separate it from the
biblical revelation and to find a new
basis for it in natural
[Return to text]
v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982
(1961). By 1961, only a dozen or so states still prohibited
atheists from assuming public office, and some of those statutes
were still on the books more than a decade after Torcaso.
L. Manning, The Law of Church-State Relations in a Nutshell
3 (1981). [Return to text]
v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 at 495 n.11, 81 S.Ct. 1680 at
1684 n.11 (1961). [Return to text]