Patriots4Liberty
  • Featured Content
  • September18th

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Whatever defenses one may wish to give of the Obama Administration, one thing cannot be denied. Barack Obama has more swiftly shepherded America to the pits of the godless than his predecessors. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in yesterday’s Pentagon instruction to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman so prefers.

    Casting the entire issue as one of rights, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James stated, “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen’s rights are protected.”

    The decision follows a request by the Air Force to the Department of Defense Counsel after an Airman at Creech AFB, Nevada struck out the words, “So help me God” on the official oath. The Airman’s unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606 which prohibits any omissions.

    The Airman in question had secured the counsel of the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Legal Center after he had been informed that he could not reenlist in the Air Force while omitting the phrase “So help me God” from his contract. Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA responded to the change: “We are pleased that the U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed our client has a First Amendment right to omit the reference to a supreme being in his reenlistment oath.”

    Rights?

     

    Both the Secretary of the Air Force and the AHA attorney who threatened suit against the Air Force have cast this episode as one of “rights.” So also does Jason Torpy, President of the Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and board member of the American Humanist Association. “After fighting for our rights, nontheists now again have the status quo in the Air Force, a secular affirmation consistent with other branches of service and our Constitution.” What shall we say to these things?

    First, the entire issue is not a question of “rights.” It is a matter of whether or not America any longer believes that there is such a thing as “inalienable rights” with which we have been “endowed by our Creator” and which our government is interdicted from transgressing. It is a question of whether or not western civilization still “holds” anything such as that to be “self-evident.”

    Humanists whine that they have the “right” to be unbelievers in God. Do they indeed have the right to refuse to take an oath before God? Of course they do! Atheists have the perfect right to be nontheists—but at the same time, the nation of citizens also has a “right” to place less or more confidence in one’s integrity if that person is not going to recognize any higher standard than himself as a basis upon which to perform a duty. An atheist may wish to take the “oath” on himself or herself, but oneself is not a very high bar.

    For this reason many Courts in early America distrusted the testimony of atheists. By what standard higher than oneself will one pledge to “tell the truth?” Seeing the plethora of modern atheistic scholastic ivory-tower material that vehemently argues that there is no ultimate standard of right or wrong by which to assess conduct, it seems the founding era of Americans knew whereof they spoke.

    The Obama Administration says it wishes “latitude” for Air Force inductees to disbelieve in God. But don’t hold your breath for that same type of latitude to be extended to believers who have a distrust of those who declare there is no such thing as an ultimate standard of conduct and duty. No, if I do not believe the integrity of the Mikey Weinstein’s of the world I will be ransacked as some kind of a bigot. Latitude of belief is reserved only for humanists and atheists who wish to attack the foundations of America.

    Second, our culture is ignoring the nature of an oath. What is an oath? Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary defined: “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.” By its very nature an oath invokes Deity.

    Webster was an influential founding father of America whose gifted labors helped ratify the Constitution. A lawyer who graduated from Yale, Webster fought in the Revolutionary War and became a member of the Massachusetts legislature. “In my view,” Webster wrote, “the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

    Because of the views set forward above he labored incessantly for the original Constitutional Convention. Showing that the basis of our entire Constitutional framework was in the Holy Scriptures, he added, “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

    An oath by its very definition encompasses a theistic world view. It also incorporates a concept of limited government that men might enjoy the freedoms that were given to us by God and it invokes the notion that I recognize that my actions will one day be brought into account before the bar of God. One might exemplify faithfulness to a country or a military promise without believing in God, but the deleterious effect of godless Humanism soaking through society erodes over time any ultimate standard of conduct—for citizens or soldiers.

     

     

    Share
  • September17th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    In the last I laid before the reader the question of Ultimate Authority in religion—whether it resides in the Scriptures or in some church body such as the Roman Church. I asserted that the Roman Church actually wrests authority from the Holy Scriptures and sets itself above the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4). In this the Roman Church is the “lawless one.”

    Before me are two recently published Catholic booklets which clearly demonstrate the truth of what I have above noted.  One of the booklets is entitled Catholic Answers to Fundamentalists’ Questions by Philip St. Romain and has upon it the “Imprimatur” of Edward J. O’Donnell, Vicar General Archdiocese of St. Louis (1984). A second pamphlet is Catholic Pocket Evangelist by Fr. Mario P. Romero with an “Imprimatur” stamped upon it by the same O’Donnell. An “imprimatur” means that it teaches official Catholic doctrine as approved by the machinery of the Roman Church. In other words, these are not just “somebody’s” statements about what that Church professes. Both of these booklets have been paper-clipped and highlighted to call our attention to specific pages. Let us see what we can learn. According to the Catholic Church:

    1. The Word of God (Bible) ALONE cannot serve as Sole Authority of Christian Belief and Practice. (Romero’s tract, p. 21). It is highly interesting that in order to support the idea that the Scriptures ALONE are insufficient many passages from the Bible are listed, e.g. Matt. 16:18,19; John 20:30; et. al. And the illustration that is used says that just as with our U.S. Constitution, “it cannot interpret itself, and thus, we need a Supreme Court to guide us in our understanding…” In other words, the argument is that we need the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to tell us what the Scriptures mean. What about this?
      1. Apparently the Catholic Church believes there are at least SOME passages that we can understand on our own without the authority of that Church—namely, the ones they listed that supposedly supports this idea! They think you can turn to those passages, read them, and come to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church—and all this without one particle of aid from the Catholic Church.
      2. Not one of those passages even mentions the Roman Catholic Church as being the authoritative Church. As a matter of fact, there is not a passage in the Bible that mentions it.
      3. Not one of the passages listed ever mentions Peter as Pope or that he ever had a successor.
      4. Regarding the U.S. Constitution, the Catholic Pocket Evangelist gets it wrong entirely. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788; but the Supreme Court was not created until 1789 and not organized until February 1790! Are we to believe that no one knew exactly what the Constitution meant or could not interpret it until two years after it was agreed upon by the States? Nonsense. As every state put it plainly, as well as was written in the Constitution itself, “All power is in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority.” The truth is, the Supreme Court was only to apply the ratified law to specific cases.
    2. According to the Catholic Church, “The Papacy attained its developed status in postbiblical times.” (Philip St. Romain, p. 18). Exactly. The entire doctrine of the papacy is NOT in the Bible itself, but was “developed” AFTER the days of the apostles. Even regarding Peter, who the Catholic Church wrongly assigns with being the first pope, “CAME TO BE CONSIDERED the first pope.” Precisely what I have written. The entire structure of the Roman Church is unbiblical, unscriptural, but was only an evolutionary development many years later. Not only that, but since the doctrine of the Papacy was a “development” of many years, how in the world did early Christians before this development ever read and understand the Scriptures? The same way we do today, without the “assistance” of the Roman Catholic Church.
    Share
  • September17th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The Bible claims for itself to be the ultimate authority in religious matters. “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

    The reason for the absolute authority of the Word of God is the fact that it is actually God speaking to man (1 Cor. 2:13). The passage above shows that the Scriptures are in reality “God breathed.” Paul wrote that the things he wrote were the commandment of God (1 Cor. 14:37). All of the apostles were promised that they would be guided unto “all the truth” in their own lifetime (John 14:26; 16:13). Therefore, the all-sufficient completed Word of God functions as the ultimate authority over man.

    It also functions as the ultimate authority over the church. Church doctrine, practice, and leadership is to be guided by this Word of God. However, the Roman Catholic Church declares that it is the ultimate authority. In an authoritative Roman Church book entitled Short History of the Catholic Church, “Brother Gustavus” tells us that “The dogmatic definition contained in the Bull (by Boniface VIII at the beginning of the fourteenth century) is the doctrine necessarily held by every Catholic, namely that by divine law all men are subject to the jurisdiction of Saint Peter and his successors, the Roman pontiffs.”

    Pope Leo XIII said: “We (the Pope) hold upon this earth the place of God almighty” (Great Encyclical Letters, 304). Again, the Roman church requires “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman pontiff as to God Himself” (193).

    One modern Catholic writer, Bob Sungenis, set the issue clearly before us. “As I studied the Catholic case against sola scriptura I knew instinctively that the whole debate between Catholicism and Protestantism could be boiled down to authority. Every doctrine one believes is based on the authority one accepts.” With this I agree. The entire issue is one of authority.

    The Bible, being the Word of God, claims that it is the sole authority in religious matters. The Roman Catholic Church declares that the authority resides in itself, and in its head, the Pope. It cannot be both. The Bible is right.

    Share
  • September11th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Society seems to be coming to the melting point. According to Christian Headlines.com there is currently an “internet challenge” which “calls upon people to post a clip of them cursing God or rejecting the Holy Spirit’s work in their lives.” Promoters of this “Blasphemy Challenge” bill it as a way to promote atheism.

    To encourage deeper ugliness the atheist sponsors are sending free DVD’s which demonstrates teenagers who complete the challenge and have posted their recordings on line. “It (the blasphemy challenge) exposes the crock that is Christian doctrine,” explained one of the promoters.

    One high school senior, Perri Frost, stated, “The online atheists and teens who are into the blasphemy challenge are almost exclusively opposed to Christianity. There are almost no complaints against other faiths. Virtually all of the atheists rail against Christians only.” What shall we say to these things?

    First, it is noteworthy that in order to promote atheism non-believers by-pass thoughtful discussion and argumentation by appealing directly to immoral behavior. One of the promoters state that cursing “exposes” Christian doctrine as being false; but thinking people know better. How does filthy language “expose” Christianity as true or false? Why is it that atheists tell us that to accept their worldview one has to begin to “think” and “reason?” How much “thinking” goes into vile language? On college campuses atheists name their clubs “Free Thinking” societies. The posture is that they arrive at their godless conclusions by reasonable discussion. But promoting blasphemy simply stirs mob-like action, via the internet. So much for promoting “free” thought.

    Second, America was founded as a Christian Nation and early courts prosecuted individuals for blasphemy. Rejecters of God despise this historical fact but that is only because they love to live not only in moral darkness, but historical darkness as well. Joseph Story, one of the “fathers of American jurisprudence,” appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, stated plainly that Christianity was part of the “common law of the land” and it ought to “receive encouragement from the state.” Today’s university students, indoctrinated with modernism, cannot understand this due to the fact they have been misinformed regarding the intent of the First Amendment. It was crafted, not to remove God from public, but to forbid the establishment of a National Denomination.

    Story’s view that Christianity was part of the “common law” was not simply his own “personal view” either. It was the fundamental understanding of the entire 13 original colonies. In 1892 the Supreme Court emphatically declared “Christianity was a part of the common law” of America: “this is a Christian nation.”

    How did this effect blasphemy? In 1824 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania indicted Abner Updegraph for “not having the fear of God before his eyes … contriving and intending to scandalize and bring into disrepute and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth in the presence and hearing of several persons… did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say … ‘The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable; that they were a contradiction … and that they contained a great many lies.” A guilty verdict was upheld.

    Why? Was it because the idea of a “Christian Nation” was like the Muslim idea of forcible conversion? Not at all. No one was forced to “go to church” or to honor God at worship. But Christianity was part of the “common law” and no one was permitted to denigrate Christianity. They debated openly God’s existence with atheists as well as the worth of the Bible—all on a public polemic platform. This was fine and acceptable. But to thoughtlessly blaspheme and promote sin while vilifying the religion of the people was disallowed.

    The exact same type of case was upheld in the Supreme Court of New York in 1811. In The People v. Ruggles the defendant was indicted for uttering a blasphemous statement in public about Jesus Christ. The Court explicitly stated that “an open discussion on any religious subject” was perfectly legitimate, even regarding God’s Existence and the Bible’s inspiration. But “to revile the religion professed by the community” was an abuse of that right.

    These cases could be cited continually, from all the colonies. The Supreme Courts of these states consistently upheld that this is a Christian Nation and that Christianity is a part of the common law of the land. Sad it is that the current challenge to high-schoolers noted above not only by-passes thoughtful discussion but violates the very core of our founding principles.

    Share
  • September9th

    Joe Herring & Dr. Mark Christian

     

    The “Arab Spring” changed seasons with Benghazi.  In the eyes of many Americans, the media-hyped chimera of democratic forces seeking freedom from dictatorships vanished with the reported sodomy and murder of our ambassador to Libya.

    The reality is, the impetus behind the Arab Spring was never really a desire for self-rule as we understand it, but rather a desire for Islamic rule. Each country that fell to that faux-organic sweep of protest shared a trait in common: aside from being brutal dictatorships, they were also secular governments.

    This essential point is missed by our major media, who, due to an irrepressible confirmation bias, assume that the only reason to upending a government is to throw off oppression.  Their failure to factor the all-encompassing influence of Islam leads inexorably to an inability to comprehend the willingness among many in the Middle East to replace repressive secular regimes with far more repressive Islamist regimes. Surprising as it appears to the Western mind, this frying pan-to-fire behavior is de rigueur in societies that credit the legitimacy of their governments to the seal of approval of their god.

    Apprehension of these truths require the West to confront the elephant in the room – the one that political correctness forbids us to address – that being Islam, and its ideology of supremacy.

    Terrorism is a tool, not an ideology.  “Terrorist” is a functional description of someone who employs this tool in furtherance of their agenda.

    The failure in the West to name that agenda is at the root of our failure to defeat it.  In the Middle East, that agenda is the re-birth of an Islamic caliphate.  In the West, it is a relentless Islamist agenda to mainstream Islamic doctrine in the mind of the average citizen, incrementally positioning Islam as an irreproachable inevitability, declaring any opposition as Islamophobic and anti-religion.

    Last year, the Obama administration wanted to nudge the stalled Arab Spring back into motion with the removal of Assad, but their trademark clumsiness attracted the attention of the Russian bear, who quickly turned the feckless Obama into a laughingstock over the whole “red line” fiasco.  Now, the rise of ISIS gives Obama the cover to resume his mission to remove Assad.  Benghazi halted the Arab Spring, but the beheading of James Foley may revive it.

    Already the Pentagon has openly discussed the need to enter Syria in order to pursue and eliminate ISIS fighters.  While such a need does exist, it also creates an exploitable circumstance where the scales may be tipped militarily in favor of anti-Assad forces.  If Christmas comes early to the White House, then the death or removal of Assad might come about as collateral damage.

    Three things previously stood in the way of a successful overthrow of Assad: Vladimir Putin, Iran, and the lack of a direct threat to Americans.

    Putin is presently engaged in Ukraine and becoming increasingly isolated for his behavior there.  Meanwhile, the clear lack of interest on our part in halting Iran’s nuclear program appears to have given the imprimatur of Obama for the mullahs to develop low-yield nuclear weapons, calming Iranian fears of a Sunni-dominated caliphate on their western border.

    Finally, the beheading of Foley and the ominous threats of a very mouthy ISIS leave Americans feeling the heat.

    So the question begs for an answer: is ISIS really the overlooked ragtag junior varsity of Obama’s description, or is it a legitimate threat to global stability – a threat of which this administration has been well aware?

    First, it is important to understand the intelligence-gathering capabilities of the United States.  According to multiple sources within the intelligence community, the growth and development of ISIS was not “overlooked.”

    ISIS may have been ignored, but it was certainly well-surveilled.  In a world where technology permits us to trace the source of an E. coli outbreak down to the person who failed to wash his hands, it is an impossibility that a major army was gathered, trained, and deployed outside America’s strategic and tactical awareness.

    So, given the fact of our foreknowledge, is it fair to ask this administration whether they might be playing a very dangerous game, allowing a brutal force to gather and deploy in order to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to Syrian adventurism?

    This particular game will be played on fields well outside the Middle East.  Putin has already thrown his lot in with Assad, and his Ukraine adventure notwithstanding, there is nothing to indicate that he would turn a blind eye to American intervention in Syria regardless of the pretext. Putin wants a warm-water port for year-round transport of his energy products, and Assad wants protection from Islamist rebels.  This dynamic has not been altered by the rise of ISIS.  If anything, Islamist expansionism in Syria and northern Iraq presents as much of an opportunity for adventurism by Putin as by Obama – perhaps more, considering Russia’s geographic proximity.

    It is entirely possible that Putin could be invited by Assad to assist in the elimination of ISIS, placing American and Russian forces in close proximity to each other.  This almost guarantees conflict.

    It is indeed a very dangerous game Obama is playing to further the expansion of his Brotherhood friends.

    If the above scenario is correct, then the application of significant “kinetic action” by American forces within the borders of Syria will occur almost immediately, setting a precedent for further incursions in weeks to come.  Assad will not allow this, and the Arab Spring hawks in the administration are likely giddily hoping he will engage American troops in combat, cementing his fate.

    The dynamic of alliance and ambition in that part of the world creates a nearly impenetrable and always unpredictable climate for diplomacy in the Middle East; the willingness of nations to shed their alliances like wet clothing on a cold night ensures that any successes will be short-lived.  The only constants in the region are Islam and oil.  Until we recognize that every action in the Middle East ultimately relates to one or both, we will continue to react to circumstances rather than anticipate them.

    The secular governments swept away by the Obama-supported Arab Spring posed far less of a threat than do the Islamists who have taken their place.  Negotiating about oil with secular governments interested in money and prestige was certainly to be preferred over fighting about religion with Islamist governments interested only in their supremacy and our death.

    Watch out, world.  The match is lit.

    About the Authors

    Joe Herring writes from Omaha, NE and welcomes visitors to his website at readmorejoe.com.
    Dr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim, is the executive director of the Global Faith Institute and the vice president of Arabs for Israel

    Share
  • September2nd

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    President Obama stated this past Thursday that he had no strategy for taking on ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq & Syria). Today’s breaking news is that the Pentagon has been specifically warning the White House about this growing ISIS threat for over a year. Citizens from both end of the spectrum have expressed outrage to unbelief at such a naïve foreign policy that disregards the most serious current global threat of Islamic extremism. But I am going to defend Obama on this one. The naivete is not in Barack Obama. It is in the American people who have twice put a man in office who has promised, not to assert western influence around the globe, but to “fundamentally transform” the basic Christian premises of our nation. Comrade Obama is accomplishing precisely what he went to Washington to do. Read More

    Share
  • August26th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    In one of Al Sharpton’s high moments of the Michael Brown funeral oration, he thundered, “This is not about you! This is about fairness! And America is going to have to come to terms when there’s something wrong that we have money to give military equipment to police forces, but we don’t have money for training, and money for public education, and money to train our children!” That may be good fodder for the Social Justice gospel which demands redistribution of goods to create a “better society” and a “better man,” but it dishonors the One True God of the Universe.

    Socialism is constructed upon two main pillars. One, the Read More

    Share
  • August25th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    Elton Trueblood of Stanford University, observed in 1942: “Whatever be the present position of academic philosophers, there is little doubt that a naïve form of naturalism is the dominant metaphysics of our Western culture just now, so far as the rank and file of literate persons is concerned.” That this continues to be the case is without question. But what is most remarkable is that he describes naturalism as “fundamentally naïve.” Why is this?

    It is because most of its philosophical implications remain unexplored by its adherents. In other words, the Richard Dawkins’ of the world have never squarely considered the fact that evolution itself is only a philosophy at its root and its fruit Read More

    Share
  • August19th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    A young woman commented this week regarding the unruliness and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri as follows: “Just another HUGE setback in social equality this week…in a country with so many ‘God-fearing’ people, hypocrisy, fear and social inequality still rule… Racism, particularly driven by social inequalities, is a primary detractor of peace.”

    The writer goes on to add, “I’m particularly concerned with far-reaching social inequality today that are typical expressions of group dominance and include, at the material level, denial of access to resources including employment, Read More

    Share
  • August14th

     

    Bill Lockwood

     

    The Bible presents Christianity as a “God-revealed religion.” It owes its origin to God alone. The sacred writings which bring the message of God, Paul asserts, were “revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10) and Peter tells that the New Covenant material is more valuable to us than “eye-witness testimony” (2 Pet. 1:18,19) since “holy men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

    Skeptics, on the other hand, inform us that Christianity had its beginnings in the culture of the Middle East and arose from polytheistic nature religions which preceded it. It itself is the product of evolution. Which is right?

    Dr. Augustus Neander, in his classic work The History of the Christian Religion and Church During the First Three Centuries, shows that from a purely reasoning and historical understanding, Christianity could not have arisen from polytheistic religions. Instead, it must have been revealed by God. Why? He offers the following. Read More

    Share
This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro