It is a brilliantly conceived plan that puts the Catholic Church in the awkward position of defending a position that most Americans, including some its own members, do not support. Yet, it is their conviction, and if we really believe in religious liberty, it must be respected and supported. To many, this is a silly position to take in today’s world. Holding this position makes the Catholic Church appear to be out of step with current realities. It is designed to marginalize and the church and cause it to fall into disrepute with the less religious.

Aside from the obvious benefit of crucifying an opponent of his policies… there is something even more sinister afoot. If the church can be moved into the irrational curmudgeon category on the contraceptive issue, it damages its stand on the critical issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. It is the Alinsky tactic subjecting a opponent to ridicule and isolation to diminish its influence and serve as an example to others who would oppose the “anointed one’s” dictates.

The Catholic Church has been publicly pushed into a position of standing against the government or going against strongly held beliefs. Corporately this is a problem… individually it has eternal consequences. Matthew 10:33 tells us “But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” I don’t think the President understands the strength of personal faith and how, even with the strictest interpretation of Romans 13, there is a duty to follow the godly promptings of conscience.

Bill Donahue of the Catholic League promised the the ruling would be fought with law suits and other legal means… and left the door open to take the battle “to the streets”. Furthermore the church leadership wrote a letter that was read in almost all Catholic Churches this past weekend that read, in part:

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

This is a powerful and courageous stand the church is taking. I would hope and pray my protestant brothers and sisters… Baptists, Pentecostals and everyone in between would join them in this stand, not just for liberty, but because, contrary to some teachings, the Catholics are our brothers in the Lord we need to support each other in our faith… lest we be divided into scattered and ineffective non-entities.

Our country is run by an administration that is continuously poking and prodding the religious community… those of us who bitterly cling to our God and our guns. If we allow them to dictate the terms of our faith, we are tacitly admitting there is someone, or something, more powerful and more worthy of our allegiance than God Himself. For the sake of those who may fall into the trap of radical secularism, we cannot let this take place.

This political blunder that could well turn a reliable Democrat voting bloc away from the party many supported in the past because of some of the economic programs seems to have come from one of two possible mindsets. The first is that, being radical secularists, members of the Obama regime simply do not understand the power and influence of faith. As bad as this sounds, it is the more benign reason. Otherwise, it could be a conscious effort to stamp out the religion that gives people hope and confidence apart from the government.

The question for us, Catholic and protestant alike, as well as our Jewish friends, is that if the stand does mean taking to the streets, will we be there standing side by side? Before we answer, it would be good to consider that Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky who would be only to happy to use civil unrest to clamp down on the opposition. What does this mean for those of us who take a stand? It could well mean that the stand would be more than a bus ride to gather at the mall in Washington. It is a decision that must be made with purpose… with Matthew 10:33 in mind. The time may be coming when the choice is more than just theoretical. Will we see it as an blessing or a curse? Will we, like our forefathers, pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor?

This did not set well with those waiting expectantly. Police were called to the Instant Tax Service in Charlotte, NC as approximately 75 angry customers descended on their office demanding the refund deposits as promised on the date promised.  They wanted their money! However, was it? There is common thinking that half the people pay taxes and half do not.

This is only partially true. The part that half pay taxes is true, however, through the magic of Earned Income Credit and other creations of an overly generous congress, many who do not pay taxes actually are refunded more than they have paid into the system… thousands more! Liberals and progressives have a term for these, they are called a transfer payments. That means, money is transferred from those who have earned it to those who have not.

The near violence in Charlotte was repeated in Richmond, VA. Given the thirst for government (read taxpayers) money, it would be surprising if these were isolated incidents. This should be a source of concern for all of us as we work for and anticipate the defeat of the Prevaricator in Chief. This great divider has convinced his followers of their right to feed at the public trough at the expense of their fellow citizens. They have bought into his story European socialist vision and are waiting with outstretched hands. What’s worse, they have been deprived of the ability to create their own lives and their own successes.

What will happen when Barack Obama is ejected for the people’s house and the money stops flowing? Or, should the people foolishly keep him in office, what will happen when the money stops because we have simply run out. Denied expectations can promote a response that none of us would like, yet we must be prepared for. The fact is that sooner or later the money will stop flowing and we have a choice of whether it will be a gentle or harsh landing. And… we also have a choice of whether we are prepared for such a response or if it will take us by surprise.

This was just a small skirmish in the quest for what some consider to be rightfully theirs. However, when things begin going badly, we need to consider how we will deal with the situation. We cannot operate a European welfare state, nor should we. However, we have seen the reaction to a delay of funds for just a few days. We cannot ignore this warning and need to be aware that even though we may be doing the right thing, there will be obstacles to overcome and we cannot loose resolve.

As Christians, we need to look beyond the annoyances and the attacks on our country and speak the truth to them that the real source of our security, and the security of those seeking our money, is our Creator, not the folks inside the beltway.

As I was growing up, hearing about the speeches and marches of Martin Luther King, much of what I heard was that he was stirring up trouble where he had no business. In the rural northeast there was little knowledge or understanding of the situations he was fighting against. There was only one black student in my high school graduating class and she was kind of cute and fit in with everyone, so I could not comprehend what the fuss was all about.

It was only later, after Dr. King was gone, and I saw grown men with dark skin addressed as “Boy” and saw pictures of segregated facilities that I began to grasp the struggles of freedom fighters like Martin Luther King Jr and others like Medgar Evers.

Our Declaration of Independence enshrined the words “all men are created equal”. Correctly it does not specify all men of a certain color, a particular economic class or those connected to the “ruling class”. It says all men are created equal. It does not say that some are only three fifths equal as some in congress specified so as to obtain congressional representation, yet not recognize the humanity of some citizens.

In so many ways, the projected rights some feel they have to lead, based on their skin color is just as repulsive, perhaps even more so, than the projected right to lead of the English royalty that our founding fathers threw off. It has been my personal observation that those who look down on others because of some external characteristic like skin color have the least reason to look down on anyone.

It may be for this reason that they are the most defensive and most violent in keeping what they consider to be their God-given dominance. History tells us that the Democrat Party rose to power in the Reconstruction south, partly through the efforts of its terrorist wing, the Ku Klux Klan that intimidated black voters and often left them hanging high in trees as a warning to others.

It is against this backdrop that Dr. King took his struggle to the streets in the 50’s and 60’s. The old racist thinking hadn’t changed much, but it had developed a veneer of sophistication and pleasantry. The north was little better as many, lured by the promise of jobs, migrated north to less hospitable climates. Most making the move “knew their place” and created an underclass of cheap laborers who basically did what they were told.

Our country is not what it should be, but great strides have been made in the direction Dr. King was working. Our black friends owe him a great debt of gratitude for his inspired leadership. The rest of us do also. He opened the eyes of many of us to situations we did not see or chose not to see.

What can we learn from this man of God who stood against established social norms? First thing we see was his commitment to non-violent protest. I believe it was part of his spiritual DNA. It also was a matter of practicality as he represented a minority group surrounded by many who would be only too happy to return violence with greater violence. Today many are questioning whether we can right the wrongs of the current administration peacefully. Dr. King, following in the footsteps of Ghandi, showed what can be accomplished by single-minded dedication to one’s goal. Unfortunately, his life ended when someone, seeing white dominance threatened, chose the violent route to a temporary victory.

Our government was not so powerful and pervasive at the time. It was not as immune to citizen concerns. King’s phones were tapped, but he did not have an empowered Department of Homeland Security breathing down his neck. We need to hope and pray that such an approach can work in our situation. If it does not, we need to decide, like our founding fathers, how much we value our freedom and what price we are willing to pay to keep it for ourselves and our children.

The non-violent approach he used was not a non-confrontational approach. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers sat down in lunch counters that refused to serve them. The closed down streets. Together they raised their voice, letting the world know they would not be denied. The non-violent approach was not an easy road as King told the people they had to stick together. They had to work together, they had to pray together, they had to march together. They at to get arrested together. Whoa! Did he say get arrested together?

Sit ins at lunch counters, while conceived as peaceable, did not always end peacefully. Protesters were hauled off to jail for trespassing. Sometimes overzealous police, protecting the old value system, cracked some heads or crosses were burned in the night. Some working for freedom suffered the same fate as King and Evers… some simply disappeared forever.

We may be up against a more pleasant speaking opponent, but Chicago style thuggery can be just a vicious. The question for us is how far is each of us willing to go in pursuit of the freedom and justice that used to be the United States of America. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is rightly a heroic figure in the black community – and the rest of our country. But, we can all learn from his life, his mission and his dedication. Thank you, Dr. King.

Don’t FAIL to ask a candidate why he or she believes what he or she believes

Church leaders often are under pressure from the government (Attorneys General or IRS, to name a few departments) to not involve themselves in providing parishioners access to information to make up their own minds about candidates or ballot issues.

They claim that pastors, by doing so, are in violation of what has become known as “separation of church and state.” Typically this is done whenever someone does not want a person who professes Christ as their Lord and Savior to use the doctrine of the faith as foundation for their choosing between competing points of view or candidates.

There are two problems with this so called doctrine:

1. Pastors have a God-given right and responsibility to preach and teach “thus sayeth the Lord” from the pulpit and parishioners have a corresponding right to “choose ye this day who you will serve” relative to moral issues.

2. The term, “separation of church and state,” is a misnomer. It implies that a Christian’s faith is somehow outside of or otherwise “attached” to the follower of Christ rather than it being from within as the Holy Bible tells us, because our “body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]” – the place where God resides within us — and “… ye are not our own.”. (1 Cor. 6:19)

Christianity therefore is the essence of a Christian’s being. It is his or her character. It is the foundation for their decision making, and as such, is who Christians are. And since they cannot be separated from themselves, the idea that they should not bring to the table who they are is ridiculous.

I believe that the intent of this effort to separate church from state has two purposes:

1. To remove the God who judges both behavior and persons from the discourse even in the house dedicated to his honor and glory.

2. To curtail the influence (especially in the political arena) of those who profess to be Christians so as to move an agenda forward that is contrary to God’s revealed word.

To further present this, I now will provide you with my definitions of two terms: position and opinion.

1. Position: taken where the proof is inviolate and a conclusion can be made.

2. Opinion: given when there exists the ability to have more than one conclusion

Why are these definitions important? Because we need to remain vigilant and because candidates for office who stridently cite scientific studies, poll data, etc., as authority for their position on secular issues, even though the so called “experts” they cite may disagree among themselves, must similarly be made to cite their authority for their position on moral issues.

I contend that there are one or the other of two main reasons candidates might profess agreement with a bible-based position but not cite the bible as their source:

1. Their position was derived at by happenstance and represents only the opinion they have arrived at without the use of an absolute standard.

2. Their position truly is taken from God’s Word, but they are ashamed of the author of the truth they speak because they fear man more than they fear God.

Scripture, however, admonishes us against this. We are to fear God and not man (Mt. 10:28) and to “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord . . . but be though partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God.” (2 Timothy 1:8)

Christians therefore need to be wary of those who merely present an opinion that, in truth, just happens to agree with the biblical principle that applies, but that may only be a matter of expedient personal choice or preference and not necessarily a position someone is committed to as we would be as non-ashamed persons indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

The fact that there is no standard against which a candidate may come to a conclusion other than what is in his or her own mind is even more egregious with regard to moral issues than it is were the issue to be a secular one. And both are inconsistent with representing the public interests.

And even worse, if some who truly are Christians are fearful of or ashamed to publicly acknowledge such and therefore withhold boldly speaking about what they know to be true; they thereby cause other Christians to struggle to identify them.

As for me, I take positions on moral issues based upon my understanding of God’s Word and am not ashamed. (Please note that this does not imply that I received a unique revelation from God, merely a revelation that is consistent with that received by others who know and love the Lord as do I, and who then have studied His Word to show themselves “approved.”)

[This is an updated extract from the paper, Traditional Family Values, written by Paul R. Green Jr. in July, 2006 while he was the Republican Party general election nominee for the California State Senate District 6 (Sacramento County). Paul is a member of and former adult Sunday school teacher at Faith Baptist Tabernacle, North Highlands, CA. He also served as interim pastor of First Filipino Baptist Church in Los Angeles, CA for one year while a member of the United States Air Force stationed in El Segundo, CA at the Los Angeles Air Force Station (now Air Force Base).]

[Part 1 of this article was originally published on To the Source and The Independent Institute.  Part 2 will be published January 2012.]

Part 1:

We live in an increasingly secularized world of massive and pervasive nation states in which traditional religion, especially Christianity, is ruled unwelcome and even a real danger on the basis of a purported history of intolerance and “religious violence.” This is found in most all “public” domains, including the institutions of education, business, government, welfare, transportation, parks and recreation, science, art, foreign affairs, economics, entertainment, and the media. A secularized public square policed by government is viewed as providing a neutral, rational, free, and safe domain that keeps the “irrational” forces of religion from creating conflict and darkness. And we are told that real progress requires expanding this domain by pushing religion ever backward into remote corners of society where it has little or no influence. In short, modern America has become a secular theocracy with a civic religion of national politics (nationalism) occupying the public realm in which government has replaced God.

For the renowned Christian scholar and writer C.S. Lewis, such a view was fatally flawed morally, intellectually, and spiritually, producing the twentieth-century rise of the total state, total war, and mega-genocides. For Lewis, Christianity provided the one true and coherent worldview that applied to all human aspirations and endeavors: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” (The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses)[1]

In his book, The Discarded Image, Lewis revealed that for Medieval Christians, there was no sacred/secular divide and that this unified, theopolitical worldview of hope, joy, liberty, justice, and purpose from the loving grace of God enabled them to discover the objective, natural-law principles of ethics, science, and theology, producing immense human flourishing. [2] Lewis described the natural law as a cohesive and interconnected objective standard of right behavior:

This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all values are rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgement of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) “ideologies,” all consist of fragments from the Tao itself. Arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they possess. If my duty to my parents is a superstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race. If the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a real value, then so is conjugal fidelity. (The Abolition of Man)[3]

And in his recent book, The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark has further shown “How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West.”[4]  Similarly and prior to the rise of the secular nation-state in America, Alexis de Tocqueville documented in his 1835 volume, Democracy in America,  the remarkable flexibility, vitality and cohesion of Christian-rooted liberty in American society with business enterprises, churches and aid societies, covenants and other private institutions and communities.[5]

In his book, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict, William Cavanaugh similarly notes that for Augustine and the ancient world, religion was not a distinct realm separate from the secular. The origin of the term “religion” (religio) came from Ancient Rome (re-ligare, to rebind or relink) as a serious obligation for a person in the natural law (“religio for me”) not only at a shrine, but also in civic oaths and family rituals that most westerners would today consider secular. In the Middle Ages, Aquinas further viewed religio not as a set of private beliefs but instead a devotion toward moral excellence in all spheres.[6]

However in the Renaissance, religion became viewed as a “private” impulse, distinct from “secular” politics, economics, and science.[7] This “modern” view of religion began the decline of the church as the public, communal practice of the virtue of religio. And by the Enlightenment, John Locke had distinguished between the “outward force” of civil officials and the “inward persuasion” of religion. He believed that civil harmony required a strict division between the state, whose interests are “public,” and the church, whose interests are “private,” thereby clearing the public square for the purely secular. For Locke, the church is a “voluntary society of men,” but obedience to the state is mandatory.[8]

The subsequent rise of the modern state in claiming a monopoly on violence, lawmaking, and public allegiance within a given territory depended upon either absorbing the church into the state or relegating the church to a private realm. As Cavanaugh notes:

Key to this move is the contention that the church’s business is religion. Religion must appear, therefore, not as what the church is left with once it has been stripped of earthly relevance, but as the timeless and essential human endeavor to which the church’s pursuits should always have been confined…. In the wake of the Reformation, princes and kings tended to claim authority over the church in their realms, as in Luther’s Germany and Henry VIII’s England…. The new conception of religion helped to facilitate the shift to state dominance over the church by distinguishing inward religion from the bodily disciplines of the state.[9]

For Enlightenment figures like Jean-Jacques Rousseau who dismissed natural law, “civic religion” as in democratic regimes “is a new creation that confers sacred status on democratic institutions and symbols.”[10]And in their influential writings, Edward Gibbon and Voltaire claimed that the wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were “the last gasp of medieval barbarism and fanaticism before the darkness was dispelled.”[11] Gibbon and Voltaire believed that after the Reformation divided Christendom along religious grounds, Protestants and Catholics began killing each other for more than a century, demonstrating the inherent danger of “public” religion. The alleged solution was the modern state, in which religious loyalties were upended and the state secured a monopoly of violence. Henceforth, religious fanaticism would be tamed, uniting all in loyalty to the secular state. However, this is an unfounded “myth of religious violence.” The link between state building and war has been well documented, as the historian Charles Tilly noted, “War made the state, and the state made war.”[12] In the actual period of European state building, the most serious cause of violence and the central factor in the growth of the state was the attempt to collect taxes from an unwilling populace with local elites resisting the state-building efforts of kings and emperors. The point is that the rise of the modern state was in no way the solution to the violence of religion. On the contrary, the absorption of church into state that began well before the Reformation was crucial to the rise of the state and the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Nevertheless, Voltaire distinguished between “state religion” and “theological religion” of which “A state religion can never cause any turmoil. This is not true of theological religion; it is the source of all the follies and turmoils imaginable; it is the mother of fanaticism and civil discord; it is the enemy of mankind.”[13] What Rousseau proposed instead was to supplement the purely “private” religion of man with a civil or political religion intended to bind the citizen to the state: “As for that man who, having committed himself publicly to the state’s articles of faith, acts on any occasion as if he does not believe them, let his punishment be death. He has committed the greatest of all crimes: he has lied in the presence of the laws.”[14]

As a result, the Enlightenment set in motion what has become today’s secular theocracy that is authoritarian and hypocritical for not just its denial of moral condemnation of secular violence, but its exaltation of such violence as highly praiseworthy.

[David J. Theroux is the Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Independent Institute and Publisher of The Independent Review.]

[1] C.S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2001).

[2] C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1994).

[3] C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1974), 44.

[4] Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2006).

[5] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).

[6] William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 62–68.

[7] Ibid, 70.

[8] Ibid, 79–83.

[9] Ibid, 83–84.

[10] Ibid, 113.

[11] Ibid, 127.

[12] Charles Tilly, “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. Charles Tilly (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975), 42.

[13] Cavanaugh, 128.

[14] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, trans. Willmoore Kendall (South Bend, IN: Gateway, 1954), 149.

Join Mat Staver and Natalie Johnson on America’s News HQ: Fox News Channel on Sunday Dec. 11, between noon and 1:00 p.m. to discuss Macy’s policy that allows men to use women’s fitting rooms.

On learning that Macy’s allows men to use women’s fitting rooms, people are outraged. They are cutting up their Macy’s credit cards and refusing to shop there until the policy changes. This bizarre policy came to light during the Christmas shopping season, when Natalie Johnson saw a man entering a women’s fitting room, which was in her department area, at Macy’s in San Antonio, TX. After he came out, Natalie politely approached the young man and told him that he could not use the women’s fitting rooms because they were for women only. Although this young man was wearing lipstick, he still clearly looked like a man. He became upset and used expletives, and the attorney who accompanied him said that Macy’s was LGBT friendly. Natalie politely responded that men cannot use the women’s fitting rooms, to which they demanded to speak with her manager. She was later summoned by her manager, Mary Ellen, and told that “transgender” people can use any fitting room they desire. When Natalie questioned how men could use women’s fitting rooms and asked for a religious accommodation because she could not lie by allowing men to use women’s fitting rooms, she was terminated.

There has been a huge outpouring of support for Natalie. Yet, this policy still stands at Macy’s and its affiliate, Bloomingdale’s. Right now, any kind of sexual predator could put on lipstick and have full access to any of the women’s fitting rooms and the girls of all ages who may be present! This must not continue!

Please sign this petition to Macy’s right now: http://www.libertyaction.org/344/petition.asp

Post on their Facebook page, asking them to please protect the privacy of their female shoppers.

Spread the word on Twitter, and include the hash tag “#macys”.

Email macys_execs@macys.com.

Call their corporate office 800-264-0069 or 513-398-5221.

Fax them at 513-573-2049.

Or write to Terry Lundren, President and CEO, Macy’s Inc, P.O. Box 8220, Mason, OH 45040.

Finally, we urge you to please pass this message along to educate shoppers that their privacy is jeopardized while shopping at Macy’s or Bloomingdale’s department stores.

However, when we see that killing unborn babies is socially acceptable and prayer is not… when we see that it is acceptable to our country’s ivory tower elites for people to sneak into our country and take jobs from out of work Americans and inflate our welfare rolls, while those trying to protect our country and culture are condemned as narrow minded racists… one wonders why anyone with any principles would concern themselves with being “socially acceptable”, or “politically correct” as it is known in academic and media circles.

This striving for social acceptance has even infected many churches as they attempt to appeal to those in the outside world. Some have removed cross from their buildings, adopted secular appearing logos and… worst of all, toned down the gospel of truth and grace so as not to offend the outside world.

My own church has taken some heat for a television ad where the pastor makes the proclamation that we won’t blend with society and quietly fit into place. Romans 12:2 tells us “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (NIV). There are just some people who believe that churches, like children in the old saying, should be seen and not heard.

We have permitted society to tell us what ideas are acceptable and which ones are not. We are told some thoughts should not be expressed in polite company. We are told that some people should not be offended… that offending someone is worse than speaking the truth. Unless one is a Muslim, we are told that we should keep our religious practices to ourselves. This should come as no surprise as the Bible tells us that the Gospel is an offense to those who are perishing… and we are afraid of hurting someone’s feelings when there is so much more at stake!

Last September, the Chaplain for the Richmond (VA) Fire Department gave the invocation before the Sprint Cup race. He had the audacity to pray in the name of Jesus, and mentioned Him at least one more time during the prayer. This year at the fall race, a local pastor did the same thing. Had this be done within the hallowed halls of academia or at a progressive political function thunderbolts of anger would have sprung forth from the eyes of the audience while tar and feathers would be prepared for the offender. As it was, the man was in the presence of flag loving, patriotic Americans who understood good things come from the Father, not the government. The earth did not open up and swallow him up and the earth kept on turning.

We can take instruction from this. We do not need to conform to the wishes and expectations of the world around us. In fact, we are told not to conform, but to be transformed. (Romans 12:2) This is particularly true when society is pushing us to in directions that we know are clearly wrong. It becomes, not just an option, but our duty. Glenn Beck tells us to “question with boldness”. When faced with questions of right and wrong, we need to act with boldness as well.

The leftist, liberals, progressives, or whatever we wish to call them, are attempting to shackle us with their false reality and their vision of the world by restricting how we describe this world and express our values. They understand that by controlling terminology, they can control the discourse and the outcome. We have already seen that in playing along with their system, we are trying to gain the blessing of those who will never agree with us or even accept our right to be heard in public. The choice is ours… do we live with their chains, or do we throw them off and pursue truth and justice?

Of course this was only a movie… and it was 1947! Over sixty years ago America was a far different place. It was a time when we looked out for each other. Today, instead of looking outward, for many, the focus has turned around 180 degrees. Stores such as Macy’s have apparently either found it more profitable to cater to the free spending homosexual community that doesn’t fritter it’s money away on families or children.

Recently this report went out concerning an incident where the company would rather discharge a conscientious employee than set limits on deviant customers:

San Antonio, TX – A young woman was fired from a Macy’s department store for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy’s is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.

When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female’s fitting room. Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “Macy’s policy which allows men to use the women’s dressing room is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant problems and will alienate the majority of Macy’s customers. Macy’s has essentially opened women’s dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.”

The story illustrates how, to the unprincipled world, chasing the dollars of perversion trumps respect for religious conviction… or even common sense. It is also possible that the management is afraid of the type of terroristic response this community has when confronted by any kind of opposition. We have seen many churches receiving threatening calls, and worse when they stand against the homosexual agenda. Retailing executives generally don’t have the backbone to stand up to the man-purse buying clientele.

It may be good to consider the type of organization we are supporting when we spend our money on presents for those we love this season. Giving it to those who thumb their noses as traditional Christian values in favor of those making a public display of their perverse abomination just doesn’t seem to be the way to the birth of our Savior.

These Pilgrims were mostly “Separatists,” who had left Europe to seek a land of liberty, where men could be free to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience–not according to the demands of a State church or an oppressive government. They made their intentions and motivations clear when they signed America’s first covenant, a document called The Mayflower Compact:

“We whose names are under-written . . . Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith . . .”

This undertaking had prompted them to leave their homes, livelihoods, families, friends, and way of life, and make a dangerous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Many became ill and some did not survive to see the New World. But they all believed that they were doing God’s will and that He would honor their faith. And He certainly did.

Although the original Pilgrims had a few confrontations with the American Indians–some were even violent–for the most part, the Indians were friendly and accommodating. They taught the Pilgrims what crops to grow and how best to grow them. They helped them understand American agriculture and the ways of the wild game endemic to that part of North America. And by the time they held their first Thanksgiving banquet, the relationship between those original Pilgrims and Massasoit and his small tribe of Indians was one of genuine trust and friendship.

God had, indeed, smiled upon the small band of Pilgrims. They had survived a long, treacherous journey across the ocean, had written the immortal Mayflower Compact, had built their homes and communities, had established a civil body-politic, had successfully planted and harvested enough food to keep them through the winter, and had established peaceful relations with the native Indians.

The Pilgrim Thanksgiving may have been the first such celebration, but it was far from the last.

Not long after becoming America’s first (and greatest) President, George Washington issued our country’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation on October 3, 1789. In the proclamation, Washington wrote:

“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . .

“Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

“And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.”

Presidents ever since have likewise issued proclamations of thanksgiving exhorting the American people to humbly acknowledge the protection and blessing of Heaven upon our land. It is particularly appropriate that they would do this. After all, we Americans–of all people–have sufficient reason to give corporate thanks to Almighty God, as our Christian forebears founded this land for the express purpose of seeking religious liberty.

The history of the world’s nations is largely the story of one despot being replaced with another. Throughout the annals of human history, the story of human government is that of the rise and fall of one empire after another; one king or potentate after another; one dictatorship being replaced with another dictatorship; one form of monarchy being replaced with another form of monarchy. Some were kinder than others. Some were benevolent. Some were harsh. And some were downright cruel. But until July 4, 1776, there was no such thing as a nation founded on self-government, federalism, and religious liberty.

For the first time in world history, Christian people were granted a land of blessing and hope. In the human sense, America became to Christians what Canaan was to Old Testament Israel. In America, believers could live at peace with both their society and their government. They no longer had to choose between obeying their God and obeying their king. In America, there was no king but King Jesus. In America, men could truly render unto God that which was God’s, as Caesar did not demand for himself that which was God’s alone. (In fact, in America, we have no Caesar.) Men no longer had to violate their conscience in order to stay out of jail. Believers were no longer required to worship at the altar of the State or the State Church. In America, men could live free.

I repeat: if anyone has a reason to give corporate thanksgiving unto God, it is the people of the United States.

The common attitudes being displayed by many Christians–along with their spiritual leaders and pastors–today, however, would seem largely out of place by America’s founders. Apathy, indifference, and lethargy seem to rule the day. I constantly hear things like: “God hasn’t called me to get involved in politics,” or “I am only called to preach the Gospel,” or “Maybe we need to go into persecution,” or “It’s not my responsibility to fight for liberty.” All of which expose their personal cowardice and utter contempt for the sacrifices rendered by their brave ancestors–sacrifices that procured the very blessings of liberty that they now hoggishly wallow in without appreciation or afterthought. And now, when faced with the imminent threat of the loss of the very liberties that they have taken for granted, they glibly reject any personal responsibility to maintain said liberties for their posterity–and pharisaically excuse their miserable conduct with pious-sounding clichés. They even have the wicked audacity to attempt to use the Scripture as an unholy closet in which they might hide–the same Scripture that their forefathers claimed as an illuminating beacon that was used to conquer the darkness of oppression.

I pray that this Thanksgiving season may be a time of both rejoicing and reflection, as well as a time of feasting and fellowship. But may it also be a time of rededication and renewal and a time of determination and decision. And I pray that we will each give our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength to the restoration of the principles of liberty upon which our republic was built. Let us renew the Spirit of ’76 in America once more. In the face of whatever danger and challenge that may oppose us, I pray that we will be the ones that will rise up to reclaim the blessings of liberty for our children and our children’s children. So help us, Almighty God!

For more by Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com .

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to“recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

George Washington