War on America: Rush Limbaugh, Defending the Faith vs. Left wing Destruction of Religious Freedom

War on America:

Rush Limbaugh, Defending the Faith vs. Left wing  Destruction of Religious Freedom

They’re scared to death of religious people because American leftists and socialists do not like the competition that God provides. In their world, the state is where everyone must turn for everything. ~Rush Limbaugh

In a commercial at a democrat debate, Ron Reagan Jr defended atheists. An agnostic, who is unsure whether there is a God, called the Rush Limbaugh show. Following is Rush Limbaugh’s response. ~C.D.

Agnostic Defends Ron Reagan Jr’s Freedom from Religion Ad

faithCALLER: As Ingersoll described it, “An agnostic believes that the universe is structured in such away such that it is impossible to determine whether or not there’s a God.”

RUSH: I’m a believer, and I agree with that. That’s why there’s faith.

CALLER: All right.

Faith Does Not Cancel Reason

Faith and ReasonRUSH: That’s why there’s faith. You don’t have any faith; I do.

CALLER: But faith is the opposite, in my book at least — and I bet in your book, too, Rush. Faith is the opposite of reason and reason is what built this civilization and reason (crosstalk).

RUSH: One doesn’t cancel the other out. Just because you have faith does not mean you are not able to reason at the same time. It doesn’t mean you’re abandoning reason just because you have faith.

CALLER: Well, I’ve been reading theology for about 65 years now. Well (crosstalk).

RUSH: You desperately want to believe, then?

CALLER: What’s that?

RUSH: You desperately want to believe?

Faith MountainsCALLER: Well, of course we want to believe and we also don’t want to die. I think that’s what fuels the belief in God. That’s my hunch. But I can’t prove that, and that’s a shame. But I’m telling you, again, now, God bless Rush Limbaugh. By the way, if not for Rush Limbaugh I — Rush Hudson Limbaugh I — there would be no, obviously, Rush Limbaugh II or Rush Limbaugh III. Therefore, there would be no President Limbaugh inaugurated on the 20th of January 2029 —

RUSH: Right. (chuckle)

CALLER: — which is gonna be a Monday, by the way, just as August 1, 1988, was.

RUSH: Brian, thank you for the call. That’s classic, folks. That’s classic. His point was… He kind of raced over it, but his point is, “Hey, Rush, I’m an agnostic. I don’t believe in God. I didn’t find anything particularly wrong with Ron Reagan’s little commercial in the Democrat debate, but I listen to you. There’s a lot of people listen to you, Rush, that are agnostic. Some are atheists. You don’t know, Rush, but you got all kinds of people in your audience so you better be careful who you’re critical of.”

I do not get into personal religious beliefs here because I don’t want to ever go down the road of criticizing somebody else’s precisely because it is faith.

And I frankly believe faith is a tremendously valuable thing, characteristic. I think faith creates so many positives in people — has the potential to. It’s much better than having none. But some people don’t. It’s their business. We do radio here, not church. That’s why I don’t delve into it and never have. But we do do politics here. I want to set the table again. For those of you who missed it, I can think of no better advertisement, product placement than I saw Wednesday night in the Democrat debate.

Democrats despise Christians, Pro-Life people

Trump: US a Christian nationNow, who are the modern-day Democrats? Well, they really publicly despise evangelicals. They despise the so-called Religious Right. They despise people like Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell Jr., Pat Robertson. They despise the pro-life movement. They hated Phyllis Schlafly. They make no bones about the fact that they think people that believe in God are a bunch of hayseed hicks who have gun racks in the back of pickup trucks, and they show up in the church parking lot on Thursday night to get a good parking spot for the sermon on Sunday.

They think you’ve got no front teeth. You sit around chewing tobacco, playing the banjo on the front porch — even if it rains. They have the most condescending, arrogant view toward religious people. And they’re scared to death of religious people because American leftists and socialists do not like the competition that God provides. In their world, the state is where everyone must turn for everything.

Not church, not God-d, not the Bible. They go as far as they can to mock and impugn and laugh at those people. However, every four years they have to dial that back because they know that even though the number of people in recent polling data who admit to being Christian or religious is declining, there’s still a sizable number of them that they don’t want to offend. When you get near the election, the Democrats dial this stuff back, other than on abortion.

Democrats skirt religion on Abortion issue

democrats vs ChristiansBut when they talk about abortion near election time, they don’t talk about it in a religious vein. They talk about “a women’s right to choose.” They talk about, “It’s a health care issue. Pregnancy is an illness. Pregnancy can kill you.” Yes, if the Democrats are in charge of the baby. So given that we have now something called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and they wanted to run an ad to raise money. So they’re asking themselves, “Where would be the best place to run our ad?”

And they obviously said, “Not on Fox News. We’d offend too many people there.” So they decided the best place to run their ad ripping and criticizing religion and Christianity would be in the middle of the Democrat presidential debate. So I want you to picture it. Here are… Oh. By the way, did you hear the ratings for this debate Wednesday night were in the tank? They dropped almost half their audience from the last Democrat debate.

When ABC did a debate, PMSNBC did a debate, they had 14-15 million people. CNN barely scraped together eight million people for three hours in prime time. It was a dud! In that regard, the product-placement specialists for the Freedom From Religion Foundation kind of made a mistake. But their thinking, you can’t blame ’em. “Okay. We hate religion. They don’t want to raise money from other people that do.

“Where are we likely to find people that hate religion?” And they said, “The Democrat debate!” And they were right. So here you are, you’re watching a Democrat debate and you’re watching these people with their inanities and their impeachment scenarios and all of this, and then Anderson Cooper says, “Well, we must take a brief break here — a brief time-out — to give the candidates a chance to catch up.

Agnostic Defends Ron Reagan’s Freedom from Religion Ad

 

YouTube Video, Classical Music, and Paderewski

Dinner Topics for Friday

 

key“Culture is defined as the way of life of a people. There is a unique gospel culture, a set of values and expectations and practices” common to all Christians. ~L. Tom Perry

YouTube Video: Paderewski Plays his Minuet in G, Op. 14, No 1; Recorded 1937: Listen Here

From Wikipedia

18 November [O.S. 6 November] 1860 – 29 June 1941) was a Polish pianist, composer, diplomat, politician, and the second Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland.

Ignacy Jan Paderewski was born in the village of Kurilovka, Litin uyezd in the Podolia Governorate, the Russian Empire. Today the village is part of the Khmilnyk raion of Vinnytsia Oblast, Ukraine. His father, Jan Paderewski, was an administrator of large estates. His mother, Poliksena (née Nowicka), died several months after Paderewski was born, and he was brought up by his distant relatives.

Initially he took piano lessons with a private tutor. At the age of 12, in 1872, he went to Warsaw and was admitted to the Warsaw Conservatorium. After graduating in 1878, he was asked to become a tutor of piano classes at his alma mater, which he accepted. In 1880 Paderewski married Antonina Korsakówna, and soon afterwards, their first child was born. The following year, they discovered that the son was handicapped; soon afterward, Antonina died. Paderewski decided to devote himself to music, and in 1881 he went to Berlin to study music composition with Friedrich Kiel[1] and Heinrich Urban. In 1884 he moved to Vienna, where he was a pupil of Theodor Leschetizky. It was in Vienna that he made his musical debut in 1887. He soon gained great popularity and his subsequent appearances (in Paris in 1889, and in London in 1890) were major successes. His brilliant playing created a furore which reached to almost extravagant lengths of admiration; and his triumphs were repeated in the United States in 1891. His name at once became synonymous with the highest level of piano virtuosity. However, not everyone was impressed. After hearing Paderewski for the first time, Moriz Rosenthal said: “Yes, he plays well, I suppose, but he’s no Paderewski”.[2]

From his early childhood, Paderewski was interested in music while living at the private estate near Zhytomyr where he moved with his father. However soon after his father’s arrest in connections with the January Uprising (1863), he was adopted by his aunt. After being released, Paderewski’s father married again and moved to the city of Sudylkov near Shepetovka.

He was extremely popular internationally, to such an extent that the music hall duo “The Two Bobs” had a hit song in 1916, in music halls across Britain, with the song “When Paderewski plays”.

During World War I, Paderewski became an active member of the Polish National Committee in Paris, which was soon accepted by the Entente as the representative of Poland. He became a spokesman of that organisation, and soon also formed other social and political organisations, among them the Polish Relief Fund in London. It was then that he met the English composer Edward Elgar, who used a theme from Paderewski’s Fantasie Polonaise[7] in his work Polonia written for the Polish Relief Fund concert in London on 6 July 1916.

In April 1918, he met in New York City with leaders of the American Jewish Committee, including Louis Marshall, in an unsuccessful attempt to broker a deal whereby organized Jewish groups would support Polish territorial ambitions in exchange for support for equal rights. However, it soon became clear that no plan would satisfy both Jewish leaders and Roman Dmowski, head of the Polish National Committee.[8]

At the end of the war, with the fate of the city of Poznań and the whole region of Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) still undecided, Paderewski visited Poznań. With his public speech on 27 December 1918, the Polish inhabitants of Poznań began a military uprising against Germany, called the Greater Poland Uprising.

In addition to his concert tours, Paderewski was a popular speaker who was renowned for his wit, and was often quoted. He was once introduced to a polo player with the words: “You are both leaders in your spheres, though the spheres are very different.” “Not so very different,” Paderewski replied. “You are a dear soul who plays polo, and I am a poor Pole who plays solo.”

In another incident, Paderewski once recalled, “I established a certain standard of behaviour, that, during my playing, there must be no talking. When they began to talk, I would stop. I would say, ‘I am sorry to interrupt your conversation. I deeply regret that I am obliged to disturb you, so I am going to stop for a while to allow you to continue talking.’ You can imagine the effect it had…”

Continued

Religious Freedom 3: Time for Push Back, Defending Religious Freedom vs. Secularism Attacks

Religious Freedom 3:

Time for Push Back, Defending Religious Freedom vs. Secularism Attacks

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love. ~William Barr, US Attorney General

William Barr Speech Notre Dame Part 3

Recent History

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief.

war on christianityIn 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice. 

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate.

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty.

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Secularists Attacking on 3 Fronts

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

1) Public School Curriculum

indoctrination in schoolsThe first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

2) State Policies that starve Religious Schools

tyranny of stateA second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds.

The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.

3) Use of State Laws to force religious schools to bow to Secularism

tyranny-social justiceA third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’ teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarities between the sexes.

This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon dismiss the case.

Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the State requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents. In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values; those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave.

At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are starved of funds – students who would otherwise choose to attend them are told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere.

Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort and, eventually, will undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation if they adhere to their religious character.  If these measures are successful, those with religious convictions will become still more marginalized.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our country.

But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back toward sanity.

push backAs Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made this country great.

And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal private lives.

We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world beyond ourselves.

This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of our church.

Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our children.

Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.

We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and Notre Dame.

 

Religious Freedom 2: Progressive Politics, Destruction of Culture are Consequences of Rejecting God

Religious Freedom 2:

Progressive Politics, Destruction of Culture are Consequences of Rejecting God

William Barr Speech at Notre Dame Part 2

Barr Slams Secularism

[T]he force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values. ~William Barr

political correctness, feelingsWhat we call “values” today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.

Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has been shaken.

In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if things go too far.

The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.

This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the “pendulum will swing back.”

But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back.

3 Obstacles to Moral Renewal

 

1) Organized Destruction by Progressive Politics

secular humanism

Secular Humanism

First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

Secularism like a Religion

One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.

Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.

Ignoring Big Questions of Life

global secular humanismPart of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our life have any meaning or purpose? But, as Blaise Pascal observed, instead of grappling with these questions, humans can be easily distracted from thinking about the “final things.”

Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.

There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.

2) No Consequences, No Responsibility

responsibilityIn the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.

But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad consequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.

  • So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.
  • The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.
  • The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on which we depend.

Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society.  It can be called the system of “macro-morality.”  It is in some ways an inversion of Christian morality.

Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation. 

The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. One’s morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather on their commitment to political causes and collective action to address social problems.

This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our private lives, while we find salvation on the picket-line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that.

Example of the Government Replacing Charities

James Madison on charitySomething happened recently that crystallized the difference between these moral systems. I was attending Mass at a parish I did not usually go to in Washington, D.C.  At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee got up to give his report to the parish. He pointed to the growing homeless problem in D.C. and explained that more mobile soup kitchens were needed to feed them.

This being a Catholic church, I expected him to call for volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the visits that the Committee had made to the D.C. government to lobby for higher taxes and more spending to fund mobile soup kitchen.

3) Law used as a Battering Ram

battering ramA third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.

Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.

First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then, the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on.

Lawyers War on Christianity

war on christianityMore recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a “live and let live” spirit – they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

obama vs christianityFor example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

Religious Freedom 1: Judeo-Christian view of Human Nature understood by Founding Fathers

Religious Freedom 1:

Judeo-Christian view of Human Nature understood by Founding Fathers

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” ~John Adams

Bowing to political correctness, Notre Dame promptly took down this address. So I am posting it in its fulness, in three parts. Unlike phony icons of the Left, William Barr is a real statesman, a man of true integrity. This speech is long and meaty, but well worth studying, and teaching to your family. ~C.D.

William Barr Speech at Notre Dame Part 1

Today, I would like to share some thoughts with you about religious liberty in America. It’s an important priority in this Administration and for this Department of Justice.

religious freedomWe have set up a task force within the Department with different components that have equities in this area, including the Solicitor General’s Office, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, and other offices. We have regular meetings. We keep an eye out for cases or events around the country where states are misapplying the Establishment Clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith, or cases where states adopt laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion.

From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

James Madison

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before.

They crafted a magnificent charter of freedom – the United States Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.

This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.

In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.

There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.

That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.

But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.

Threat not from outside the US

American foundersThe challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society.

They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition.

These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.

Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

Madison vs. tyrannyOn the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.

Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their appetites…. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.

Men who cannot control their passions cannot be free

 It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.

Freedom depends on the Self-Discipline and virtue of the People

Madison-self controlThey would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”

This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

Our Government made only for a Moral and Religious People

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”~John Adams

As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:

John Adams-Constitution morality“Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but over time the harm is real.

Religion helps Train People to Do What is Right and Good

Moral Absolutes quoteReligion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules – its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.

I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack.

On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.

On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.

Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.

In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.

Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.

As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is more casualties in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.

Bitter Fruits of the Secular Age

moral decline graph

Only Staying above world standards is still moral decline

I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.

Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But where is the progress?

We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can sustain human social life?

The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.

Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without religion.

We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?

Operation Gratitude: Write Letters to Honor our Heroes

Operation Gratitude:

Write Letters to Honor our Heroes

 

keyIt has been said that war is organized boredom pierced by moments of sheer terror. On top of fending off attacks from enemies, soldiers must combat boredom, loneliness, homesickness and low morale on a daily basis. Write them  letters! Not just once— but frequently. It’s the least we can do.

Update: I recently received a note from a serviceman, in response to letters I have written through this organization. It made my day. If you can take the time to write these brave souls, it is well worth it. ~C.D.

NOTE: I checked out the sites mentioned below. Any Soldier requires a donation first, and is complicated, because they give you a specific name, and then try to keep track of that person who gets moved frequently. So your letter may not even reach that person. Operation Gratitude, on the other hand, is simple. It shows you where to send a letter, either to someone currently deployed or a wounded warrior, [or both], and ends up being more personal, and all it costs is a postage stamp! Sometimes they write back, too. You can correspond and keep their spirits up; life is tough for them.

Here is the address:

Operation Gratitude

21100 Lassen Street

Chatsworth, CA 91311

There are other options, but a letter is most personal, and more likely to reach someone who will truly be blessed by your efforts. And you are more likely to reach more soldiers, because it’s so easy—something you can do on a regular basis, such as a Sunday evening activity with your family. The first and most important piece of advice is to keep the message upbeat and positive. The only topics not appropriate are death, killing and politics. Let the soldier know you are praying and offer encouraging Scripture, but don’t make the letter a sermon. Remember that the point of the letter is to show appreciation and make the soldier or veteran smile. Thank you for remembering and honoring our brave heroes who risk their lives for our freedom and comfort. ~C.D.

vetsoperationthankyou_insideOperation Thank You

A small expression of gratitude can make a big difference on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, or all year long.

Eleventh hour. Eleventh day. Eleventh month. It is 1918 and the Allied Powers have finally signed an armistice with Germany, ending major hostilities between the two countries. A year later President Woodrow Wilson declared November 11 Armistice Day, setting it aside to show recognition of and appreciation for those who sacrificed and served in our military forces. In 1954 President Dwight Eisenhower designated it as Veterans Day.

Why we write
It has been said that war is organized boredom pierced by moments of sheer terror. On top of fending off attacks from enemies, soldiers must combat boredom, loneliness, homesickness and low morale on a daily basis.

Standard strategies to fight these include practical jokes, reading, writing letters and creating games that take as long to explain as they do to play.

Soldiers in any branch during any operation will say that, next to getting orders to go home, the best thing they do while deployed is opening letters and packages from home. But many soldiers go through entire deployments without receiving one phone call, one email or one care package.

vetsweowethemOperationgratitude sends letters to active duty soldiers and veterans who have returned home. One veteran responded to Operation Gratitude, writing, “When I opened your envelope today and read your letter and the three others you have sent me, I was profoundly moved. Through the years since I returned home, I have had people, from time to time, thank me for my service. But this is the first time I have received letters written from the heart by people who have no idea who I am – only the fact that I served. With each one I read, I could feel the emotions welling up inside. When I finished the last one, I was filled to bursting with pride, love for my country and love for my people. Please accept my thanks for your thoughtfulness and caring. I never thought letters like this could have such an effect. You have given me a gift I will carry in my heart always.”

What we write

Operation Gratitude realizes people often don’t write because they don’t know what to say or are afraid of saying the wrong thing. The organization provides useful information for those interested.

land of free bc of braveThe first and most important piece of advice is to keep the message upbeat and positive. The only topics not appropriate are death, killing and politics. Let the soldier know you are praying and offer encouraging Scripture, but don’t make the letter a sermon. Remember that the point of the letter is to show appreciation and make the soldier or veteran smile.

Also include the reason you are writing. Do you have a family member serving who has inspired you to show support to every person in uniform? Do you not have a family member or friend serving but want to say thanks to a true hero? Express that in the letter.

Above and beyond

There are many opportunities to encourage soldiers beyond writing letters. Operation Gratitude encourages supporters to fill packages with candy, CDs, DVDs, books, coffee, balm, sunscreen and other needed items. For a list of soldier-requested items, visit operationgratitude. There is also a link to purchase specific items on Amazon.

Another way to get involved is recycling an old cell phone. Many programs will accept old cell phones and tablets, recycle them and use the money to buy phone cards for soldiers to call home whenever they find down time.

Not just for Veterans Day, but regularly, send a letter to a soldier or a veteran. Give special recognition to friends and family who have served. No matter what you write, pack or do, make a concerted effort to give honor to the heroes who walk in our midst.

Judeo-Christian Faith: Ben Carson Opens Trump Cabinet Meeting with Prayer at Trump’s Request

Judeo-Christian Faith:

Ben Carson Opens Trump Cabinet Meeting with Prayer at Trump’s Request

Video shows Ben Carson delivering prayer before Cabinet meeting at Trump’s request

praying men are winning menBen Carson, President Donald Trump’s secretary of housing and urban development, is widely known for being outspoken about his Christian faith. It seems fitting, then, that Trump asked Carson to pray at the beginning of a Monday cabinet meeting.

The secretary’s prayer was captured on video and published by a variety of outlets, including CNS News.

Trump opens the meeting by asking Carson to say “grace.”

“If you would, Ben, please do the honors.”

Carson’s subsequent prayer included a message of thanks and a series of requests.

He began by acknowledging God and his goodness to the United States.

“Our kind Father in Heaven, we’re so thankful for the many blessings that you have bestowed upon us in this country, and we’re thankful for the people of courage who have been here before us, who have fought hard for the rights of our country,” he said.

Watch Carson’s full prayer below.

 

 

 

 

Trump, God vs. Left wing abuseNext, the former neurosurgeon thanked God for Trump’s service and courage, alluding to the barrage of negative coverage the president has received in the establishment media and asking God to guide him as he leads the country.

“And we thank you for President Donald Trump,” Carson said, “who also exhibits great courage in face of constant criticism.”

“And we ask that you would give him strength to endure and the wisdom to lead, and to recognize you as the sovereign of the universe with the solution to everything.”

The secretary then broadened his prayer to include himself and other members of the Trump administration.

“And the people around the president — the vice president, the cabinet, the advisers — give us all an understanding heart and a compassionate heart. Those are the things that will keep America great.”

US Christian nationCarson also prayed that Americans would remember that “separation of church and state” does not require the government to abandon Christian virtues.

“Help us all to recognize as a nation that separation of church and state means that the church does not dominate the state, and it means the state does not dominate the church.”

“It doesn’t mean that they cannot work together to promote godly principles of loving your fellow man, of caring about your neighbor, of developing your God-given talents to the utmost so that you become valuable to the people around you and having values and principles that govern your life.”

Carson ended his prayer with optimism.

“And if we do those things, then we will always be successful,” he said. “And we thank you for hearing our prayer. In your Holy name, amen.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/video-shows-ben-carson-delivering-prayer-cabinet-meeting-trumps-request/

YouTube Video: Classical Music and Dittersdorf

Dinner Topics for Friday

“Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield themselves up when taken little by little.” Plutarch (46-127); Historian, Writer

Watch a young boy play this beautiful Harp Concerto

 

DittersdorfCarl Ditters von Dittersdorf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1739-1764

Dittersdorf was born in the Laimgrube (now Mariahilf) district of Vienna, Austria, as August Carl Ditters. His father was a military tailor in the Austrian Imperial Army of Charles VI, for a number of German-speaking regiments. After retiring honorably from his military obligation, he was provided with royal letters of reference and a sinecure with the Imperial Theatre. In 1745, the six-year-old August Carl was introduced to the violin and his father’s moderate financial position allowed him not only a good general education at a Jesuit school, but private tutelage in music, violin, French and religion. After leaving his first teacher, Carl studied violin with J. Ziegler, who by 1750, through his influence, secured his pupil’s appointment as a violinist in the orchestra of the Benedictine church on the Freyung.

Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen soon noticed young Ditters, and on 1 March 1751 hired him for his court orchestra. Under princely auspices he studied violin with Francesco Trani who, impressed with the ability of his pupil in composition, commended him to Giuseppe Bonno who instructed him in Fuxian counterpoint and free composition. After a few years Prince Joseph disbanded the orchestra, since he had to leave Vienna to assume the regency in Hildburghausen, and the Austrian Empress hired Dittersdorf for her own orchestra through Count Durazzo, Theatre Director at the Imperial Court. In 1761 he was engaged as violinist in the Imperial Theatre orchestra, and in 1762 its conductor. It was during this period that he became acquainted with Christoph Willibald Gluck, who had just achieved greatness as an opera composer with the Vienna première of his Orfeo ed Euridice. In 1763 he traveled to Bologna with Gluck to see the opera Il trionfo di Clelia: an Italian tour that was to leave the greatest impression on his future work as a composer from both the Austrian Gluck and the contemporary Italian musical scene. In 1764 he traveled to Paris, a trip with only scare and uncertain documentation. Back in Vienna in 1764, his contract with Count Durazzo expired that winter, but he met the great Joseph Haydn and became one of his closest friends.

Style and Fame

Ditters’ early work laid the groundwork for his later more important compositions. His symphonic and chamber compositions greatly emphasize sensuous Italo-Austrian melody over motivic development (which is often entirely lacking even in his best works, quite unlike those of his greater peers Haydn and Mozart)

Even with these reservations, Dittersdorf was an important composer of the Classical era. After some early Italian opere buffe, he turned to writing German Singspiele instead, with Der Apotheker und der Doktor (1786, generally known today as Doktor und Apotheker) in particular being a tremendous success in his lifetime, playing in houses all over Europe and recorded almost two centuries later. Among his 120-or-so symphonies are twelve programmatic ones based on Ovid‘s Metamorphoses, although only six have survived (and have also been recorded). He also wrote oratorios, cantatas and concertos (among which are two for double bass and one for viola), string quartets and other chamber music, piano pieces and other miscellaneous works. His memoirs, Lebenbeschreibung (“Description of [My] Life”), were published in Leipzig in 1801. Some of his compositions, including the double bass concerto, were published in Leipzig by the Friedrich Hofmeister Musikverlag.[2]

List of Dittersdorf many works

 

Book Reviews: Ronald Reagan’s Victory over Berlin Wall and Communism

Book Reviews:

Ronald Reagan’s Victory over Berlin Wall and Communism

Reagan’s War

Peter Schweizer

The Epic story of his forty-year struggle and final triumph over communism

keyUnderstanding Reagan’s struggle and final triumph over communism involves more than debating the past or deciding who gets the credit. It provides us with wisdom and hope for the struggles of today and tomorrow. Reagan’s hope that we be guided not by fear but by courage and moral clarity is as apt today as it was during the height of the Cold War. ~Peter Schweizer, Reagan’s War

reagans-warReagan’s War is the story of Ronald Reagan’s journey as an anti-communist, from his early days as an actor to his years in the White House. Challenging popular misconceptions of Reagan as an empty suit who played only a passive role in the demise of eth Soviet Union, Peter Schweizer details Reagan’s decades-long battle against communism.

Bringing to light previously secret information obtained from archives in the United States, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia—including Reagan’s KGB file—Schweizer offers a compelling case that Reagan personally mapped out and directed his war against communism, often disagreeing with experts and advisers, who tended to seek co-existence with tyranny rather than victory for freedom, which they called “detente”, and engaged in endless secret meetings with the Soviets. Jimmy Carter carried on secret meetings with Castro.

Despite constant attacks from the media and establishment politicians, Reagan remained firm and steadfast. He was his own man.

Reinforced by his own spiritual resolve, Ronald Reagan had a brilliant, 3-prong strategy for defeating the Soviet empire:

1) Drain them  economically by escalating the arms race so they could not keep up with the powerful capitalistic economic engine with their failed socialist agenda

2) The Strategic Defense Initiative protected the United States from Russian missile attacks

3) Lend economic and moral support to the captive nations of the empire

Reagan rebuked detente. His Cold War policy was: “We win and they lose.”

Brezhnev Army in Civilian Clothing

Brezhnev secretly used Soviet soldiers to advance his cause. Brezhnev called them the “internationalists,” young, specially trained men who would disguise themselves as teachers, doctors, and agricultural experts. They were an army in waiting, and when they were needed, they would don foreign military uniforms, use Soviet military equipment painted with insignias of another country, and join the myriad of civil wars that were ravaging the developing countries. [Schweizer, 79]

The Hand of God

quote-chronicles7When Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, he stood stiffly, with his right arm raised. His left hand rested on his mother’s Bible, opened to the seventh chapter, fourteenth verse of Second Chronicles:

                 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Reagan believed that the Soviets were using fear of the bomb to manipulate the West psychologically, and he was determined not to blink. “The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets,” he said, “but a test of wills and ideas—a trial of spiritual resolve.”

 

On March 30, 1981, just two months after his inauguration, Ronald Reagan was leaving the Washington Hilton Hotel on a cool afternoon after having given a speech to the Business Trades Council of the AFL-CIO.

reagan-quote-appeasement                Reagan turned answer a reporter when all of a sudden, there was a Pop. Pop. Pop.

                Lodged under his left arm was a .22 caliber bullet which was designed to explode on impact. It was one of six that had been fired by a deranged young gunman named John Hinckley Jr. One of the shots had ricocheted off the bulletproof limo before penetrating Reagan’s chest muscles.

At 3:24 p.m., doctors were operating to remove the bullet.

Referring to Reagan’s tremendous physical strength, which had given him the confidence to overcome physical threats in Hollywood and Sacramento, one doctor reported, “I have never in my life seen a chest like that on a man his age.”

Reagan had long believed that each individual has a divine purpose in life. He had been spared an assassin’s bullet.  “I have decided that whatever time I have left is left for Him,” he said.

If every person is given a divine purpose, as Reagan believed, he knew what his was to be. He had battled communism close to forty years now. What could be more abhorrent to God than a system that denies God?

Only ten days before the attempt on his life, Reagan had given a speech in Washington on the false hope of communism as compared with real faith in God.  “the crisis of the Western world, Whittaker Chambers reminded us, exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God.”

reagannosurvive-without-God                “Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid,” he continued. Now was the time for “renewing our spiritual strength. Only by building a wall of such spiritual resolve can we, as a free people, hope to protect our own heritage and make it someday the birthright of all men.”

In keeping with that policy, Reagan secured the release of many dissidents in oppressed nations.

A  Special Mission for America

He had also believed for some time that not only individuals but some nations are part of a “divine plan.” Since the 1950s he had voiced his belief that America had such a mission, and he always expressed it in terms of demonstrating an “abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.” [129-137]

After the collapse of the empire, Reagan took no credit.

berlinwallreagan                Since the end of the Cold Warm a debate has raged about how it ended. One person who never got wrapped up in this debate was Ronald Reagan. One of the last items to be removed from his Oval Office desk in January 1989 was a small sign that read: “It’s surprising what you can accomplish when no one is concerned about who gets the credit.”

Understanding Reagan’s struggle and final triumph over communism involves more than debating the past or deciding who gets the credit. It provides us with wisdom and hope for the struggles of today and tomorrow. Reagan’s hope that we be guided not by fear but by courage and moral clarity is as apt today as it was during the height of the Cold War. [284-285]

Founding Principles of America 23: Voter Education, key to Free Republic

Voter Education, key to Free Republic

Founding Principles of America 23: Importance of an Educated Electorate

US Constitution series 23

Principle 23: A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education

The English colonists in America undertook something which no nation had ever attempted before—the educating of the whole people.

characteredClear back in 1647 the legislature of Massachusetts passed a law requiring every community of 50 families or householders to set up a free public grammar school to teach the fundamentals of reading, writing, ciphering, history, geography, and Bible study.

Importance of Good Local School Boards

The success of this educational effort was due largely to the careful selection of highly conscientious people to serve on the school committees in each community and supervise the public schools.

European and American Literacy Compared

225px-BenFranklin2The unique and remarkable qualities of this program are better appreciated when it is realized that this was an age when illiteracy was the common lot of most people in Europe. John Adams, who spent many years in France, commented on the fact that of the 24 million inhabitants of France, only 500,000 could read and write. (Koch, The American Enlightenment, 213,217.)

In the American colonies the intention was to have all children taught the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic, so that they could go on to become well-informed citizens through their own diligent self-study. No doubt this explains why all of the American Founders were so well read, and usually from the same books, even though a number of them had received a very limited formal education. The fundamentals were sufficient to get them started, and thereafter they became remarkably well informed in a variety of areas through self-learning. This was the pattern followed by both Franklin and Washington. (Skousen, 251,252)

 

Alexis_de_tocquevilleDe Tocqueville Comments on American Education in 1831

In New England every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution. in the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon.

Education includes Morality and Politics

It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where the instruction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from moral education.

 

constitution1Even Young Children Trained in the Constitution

To appreciate the literal reality of the emphasis on politics in early American education, one need only examine the popular textbook on political instruction for children. It was called a “Catechism on the Constitution,” and it contained both questions and answers concerning the principles of the American political system. It was written by Arthur J. Stansbury and published in 1828.

Early Americans knew they were in possession of a unique and valuable invention of political science, and they were determined to promote it on all levels of education.

 

Early American Educated to Speak with Eloquence

And whatever may be said to the contrary, a correct use of the English language is, at this day [1843], more general throughout the United States than it is throughout England herself. Daniel Webster

It was commonplace for the many people on the frontier, as well as on the Atlantic seaboard, to speak with a genuine flavor of eloquence. Sermons and orations by men of limited formal education reflected a flourish and style of expression which few Americans could duplicate today. Many of these attributed their abilities to extensive reading of the Bible. Such was the case with Abraham Lincoln. Certainly the classical beauty of the Gettysburg Address and his many other famous expressions cannot be attributed to college training, for he had none.

bible1Cultural Influence of Extensive Bible Reading

Not only did the Bible contribute to the linguistic habits of the people, but it provided root strength to their moral standards and behavioral patterns. As Daniel Webster stated, wherever Americans went, “the Bible came with them.” Then he added:

It is not to be doubted, that to the free and universal reading of the Bible, in that age, men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. The Bible is a book of faith, and a book of doctrine, and a book of morals, and a book of religion, of especial revelation from God; but it is also a book which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man. ~Daniel Webster

 

In our own day the public schools have been secularized to the point where no Bible reading is permitted. The Founding Fathers would have counted this a serious mistake.

(Skousen, 253-256)

 

Founding Principles of America 22: Rule of Law protects Constitutional Freedoms

reagan-quote-govt-is-problem

‘The book Reagan wanted
taught in high schools’

In “The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World,” you will discover the 28 principles of freedom America’s Founding Fathers said must be understood and perpetuated by every society that desires peace, prosperity and freedom. Learn how adherence to these beliefs during the past 200 years has brought about more progress than was made in the previous 5,000 years.

This book describes the problems the Founding Fathers dealt with and how philosophies and ideals collided to form the United States of America. The skills and prosperity of the Jamestown settlers in 1607 greatly contrast those of society after the enactment of the United States Constitution.

Shortly after the Constitution was enacted, a free-enterprise system – an economy with little government influence that flourishes with competition of businesses – was established. It is because of this system that America became the most advanced and powerful country that world history has known.

After highlighting the importance of the nation’s foundation, Skousen covers in detail what went into the design of the Constitution. Surveying the original sources for the principles that inspired the United States, the author shows how the Founders developed these principles from the studies of Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith.

Skousen also contrasts the affluence of the young United States with that of the present day, showing that it was because of the free-enterprise system that America produced such astounding inventions and ideas, from jet propulsion to the doubling of life expectancy. Within this narrative of success, Skousen weaves the story of America as a Christian nation, guided by divine providence and created for the liberty and rights of mankind.

This book also analyzes problems throughout history (such as national debt) that have come from failing to adhere to the Constitution.

5000leap“The 5000 Year Leap” gives the reader a greater understanding of the origins of the United States of America, the consequences of deviating from the principles on which it was founded and all the characteristics that have made this nation great.