My Epiphany on Rand Paul

Rand_Paul_2If there’s one thing that I’ve learned since President Obama has been in office it’s this: Do Not Trust The Government!!!

Think about it. Most of the problems we are facing are government driven. Decisions are made with little regard for the long term effects. I hate to say this but it feels as if our chickens have come home to roost.

Wars are waged, the unborn sacrificed, borders hijacked, and it all keeps getting worse. Empty promises and bold lies rule our day.

Ted Cruz 2016


Our Rule of Law continues to be manipulated and circumvented at every turn and we continue to pay the price.This brings me to Rand Paul…

I’m starting to finally realize that he’s on to something. He talks passionately about balanced budgets and privacy rights; but most importantly he seeks to take on the very thing that poses the largest threat to the American people.

How much unsustainable debt will we incur? How long will we continue to wage unconstitutional wars?

Woodrow Wilcox


How much liberty are we prepared to forego so that those we’ve helped encourage to take arms against us can be thwarted?

What happens when those who do not act in our own best interest win the hearts and minds of a seduced majority and ultimately become our master? Where does that leave us?

We’ve given up so much power and control that we made victims of ourselves. How can we be faithful to God when we’ve handed so much control over to man?

We’ve rejected God for so long and we reap what we sow. There are no earthly saviors. We’ve lost control of our own government. Our Constitution has been severely perverted.

I’m tired of our government granting and removing ‘rights’ that fall entirely outside of their finite jurisdiction. Government cannot give consent nor decree that innocent lives are disposable, or that the definition of husband and wife can be manipulated. It can’t spend money we don’t have without our consent and then make us and our children responsible for the reckless consequences.

We don’t need a nanny or a big brother, we need order! Order only comes when our personal rights and natural liberties (as bestowed by our Creator) are protected from infringement.

Unfortunately, policy is being determined by global interests, the military industrial complex, corporate investments, and powerful lobbyists. Big government is a monster that continues to expand and grow. As it continues to do so, the average American is getting consumed by it. The countdown to self-implosion has begun.

Paul better keep on talking. I know I, for one, will be listening…

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

A.J. Castellitto is a freelance writer who resides in NJ with his wife and five children. He holds a B.S. in Counseling and Human Services from the University of Scranton and his writings have been published at The Center for Western Journalism, The Christian Post, Intellectual Conservative and Reformed Perspective Magazine.
A.J. Castellitto
View all articles by A.J. Castellitto
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • AJ Castellitto

    As for all the talk regarding the separation of church and state, the fact of the matter is God is not inferior to government, but rather, outside and above it. The state has no authority over the church and especially not over the Judeo-Christian God of our founders. The state can’t subject the church to taxes. It falls outside their authority to do so. The state answers to We the People and we answer to GOD!

    • TexasForLife

      Most of the founders aren’t Christian and they made it clear America is not based upon Christianity. That is no longer disputed.

      • AJ Castellitto

        What were they, religious humanists? atheists? Where did they get their morality from? What did they base their concept of natural law on? Our rule of law is derived from atheism? Islam? What? You can’t have a moral standard without a true barometer…… If you don’t know what is right you can’t know what is lawful

        • TexasForLife

          You don’t need religion to have a moral compass. I know plenty of people who understand right and wrong, but weren’t raised in religion.

          Some of the founders were Christian, some Deist, some Catholic, all denominations. To say America is going to fail because we remove “God” from the equation is intellectually lazy.

          Our rights and morals are inherent. Endowed by our creator, be it evolution, intelligent design, “God,” Odin, Thor, Robert Heinlein, or any of the other many thousand deities worshipped. People know whats wrong and when what they are doing is wrong. It’s a feeling we all feel when making decisions and taking action. You don’t need to adhere to a set of myths to derive those ideals. Man has had morality and moral codes long before Christ and even Judaism.

          • AJ Castellitto

            I guess we will see…..

            • Ryan Showalter

              I’ve said it before somewhere, but there are many religions that have great beliefs to learn from without believing in the deity aspect of it. Treat others how you want to be treated. That should be a cardinal direction in ANY moral compass for anyone with or without religious beliefs.

              The key requirement for a moral compass I think is empathy. Being able to understand and feel another person’s position and thoughts. If you can’t do that, then you aren’t able to understand anything but life from a selfish perspective. Too many people today are trolls, follow bad tradition, or “don’t give a fuck.” Its tearing down the country.

              • Bob Ellis

                Sure, there are tenets within most religions that are worthwhile. But from whence does the authority of those tenets come? If they come only from ideas dreamed up by men, then they are not binding on other men. They are nothing more than one person’s or a group of person’s ideas-all as fallible as the men who thought them up. A man named Karl Marx thought up a belief system, and a group of people thought it was a good idea…and now, over a century and over 100 million dead people later, it’s pretty clear (to most of us, anyway) what a horrible idea it is.

                So it should be obvious that, no, all ideas are NOT equal, nor is there enough merit in some of them to be worth following.

                A truly good moral code does not require empathy. No doubt it is easier to abide by with empathy, but it is not required. Because guess what: the fallen nature of the human condition is that we will frequently NOT empathize with others. But a good moral code is not dependent on empathy; it depends on it being right, and it depends on it being authoritative, and it is not authoritative if one guy dreamed it up and tries to impose it on others. It is only authoritative if it comes from a lawgiver who has authority over all who are bound by it. Only the creator of all human beings has the authority to impose and enforce a moral code that is applicable and binding on all human beings.

                You may be for the “separation of church and state,” but the founders of this nation most certainly were not-at least not in the sense that modern secularists mean it. The founders established a nation that was not a theocracy, in that it did not establish an official state church or religion and force all citizens to render obeissance to it as almost every nation in existence at the time did.

                But it is beyond rational dispute that the founders never, ever intended our nation to be divorced from the influence of religion-most specifically, the religion that almost all of them ascribed to: Christianity.

                Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion. - Noah Webster

                The Christian religion–its general principles–must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society. - Daniel Webster, Senator, Congressman, Secretary of State

                The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. - Patrick Henry

                I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. The spirit is opposed, not only to the splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many of its precepts have for their objects republican liberty and equality as well as simplicity, integrity, and economy in government. It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions of the world. - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence

                The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite….And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United. - John Adams

                To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian - George Washington

                Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. - President George Washington

                Christianity is part of the common law. - James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, member of the Continental Congress, framer of the U.S. Constitution

                In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience. - James McHenry, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

                Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers

                The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

                I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our minicipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law - Justice Joseph Story

                So oppose the surest foundation for liberty ever known to man if you insist, but I’ll side with the men who founded this nation every time. Theirs formed the greatest, most free, and most prosperous nation in history, while the secularist ideas of men have produced the worst bloodshed and oppression ever seen in history.

              • Ryan Showalter

                I’m going to have to disagree with some of what you’ve said, but that may be because our views are different. I don’t mind that in a sense, because we are following two different roads to the same destination.

                I disagree with the notion that we have to have authority given to us from a higher power. Does a pride of lions not function well on its own? Nothing gives them rules on how to live, yet they’ve existed for a long time before we came along. Also, I pointed out that empathy would be a cardinal direction on a moral compass, meaning someone with very strong morals would have it. That doesn’t mean it can’t work without it, it just doesn’t function as well. That said, If half the people in political power had empathy we wouldn’t be as unbalanced as we are economically.

                Karl Marx’s idea was a good one, if human greed did not exist. What communism became and is today is a twisted version of it that benefits only those at the top. Modern communism really shouldn’t be linked to what Marx’s idea was. As it is now, it’s essentially a pyramid scheme with the government at the top. What Karl Marx really wanted is a form of socialism. Are you aware that many of the top ten countries in the world in most lists are socialist countries? We aren’t in the top ten overall, except for economic power where we are the first. (Which of course, only the small few get to see the results of. Capital!)

                As for the founding fathers, I can agree they made very good quotes and stood up for their freedoms. They weren’t better then we are today though. Most of them lacked that empathy I mentioned which might have been why they fought for their freedom while owning slaves. If you look at war and death tolls since WW2 you will see an unprecedented downward trend with record low rates.

                You also have to look at the founding fathers and people of the time’s background. What was probably the only religion they were exposed to? How much world knowledge did they have? Ben Franklin had one of the widest views in his time. Do you know what he believed in? His own virtues based off his experiences. He even eventually wanted to end slavery while many (Washington, Jefferson, etc) still had slaves.

                I think many humans have to, feel compelled to even, project their beliefs onto something. To have it be based on a foundation that isn’t themselves. Many people choose religion, whichever form it takes for them. Oddly enough I think the show Captain Planet said it the best;

                “The power is… yours!”

                Indeed, we ourselves have the power. I believe the recovering alcoholic didn’t “find god” to help recover, I think he used religion as an anchor for his mind to use. My dad quit smoking cold turkey with no aid because he wanted to. I’ve been addicted to things in the past, and I’ve quit them with no aid other than my own will power. I don’t need something to help me achieve an enlightened state or to be kind to my fellow man. I have a brain, and the will power to use it. We are the authority. We decide to work together and help each other.

                I will walk my road in life. You will walk yours. Hopefully on our journey together we can make the road better for those that come after.

              • Bob Ellis

                You can disagree all you like. It won’t change the facts or the truth to which they point. “Views” are irrelevant to facts.

                I never said we have authority given to us by a higher power. I said that a moral system has to have authority for it to be of any value.

                I could attempt to pull you over (like a cop) and penalize you because I didn’t like the color of your vehicle. But I have no authority to do that. I am not a law enforcer, and certainly not a law giver. I have no authority with which to impose criminal law on anyone else, and even more so do I have no authority with which to impose moral law on anyone else.

                In order for a moral law to be binding, it has to be backed with authority. One human being has no moral authority over another because one human being has no basis of moral authority over another human being. Only someone who is in full authority over all human beings has the justification to establish a moral code by which all human beings must live. Short of that, it’s just one person or group of persons attempting to impose their opinions on others (I could have sworn I already explained this earlier).

                I also explained that empathy, while useful, is not a required component in a moral code. There are frankly people out there for whom I don’t give a flying flip, and have zero empathy for. But my lack of empathy for them does not in the slightest justify any harm I might do to them. A good moral code is not only backed by authority, but is also objective (i.e. as the dictionary defines objective, being “based on facts rather than feelings or opinions”). Empathy is a feeling; it is not a fact.

                Yes, Marxism sounds like a good idea…on paper. But as you yourself alluded to, it ignores human nature. Indeed, it pretends human nature does not exist, and in pretending so, it leaves itself blindsided to the worst of human nature, which is why Marxism has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million human beings, and the brutal oppression of many hundreds of millions more.

                And on what basis, what authority, does Marxism base its moral code? The shifting sands of human feeling and opinion. In other words, it has no authority beyond that which it can impose on another human being. And how must it impose itself on human beings who don’t want to live by that moral code (which is the vast majority of people on the planet)? Force. Brute, brutal, merciless force. Otherwise, people don’t want to live under it. That’s why the Marxists had to build a fence around the Soviet Union and its satellites to keep people in; they all wanted to run away (except those who were in power, and could reap the best fruits of the labor of the powerless masses under their control). Marxist regimes today also maintain brutal control over their people.

                Yes, I’ve lived in socialist countries before. Most of their people look to the United States, yearning for the freedom and prosperity we enjoy here (again, except for the few elite who get to live above the dregs they leave for the masses). Socialist (a milder form of Marxism) countries are definitely better and better off than communist (a more pure form of Marxism) ones, but they, too, must highly control their people to maintain their system, even at the mediocre level they enjoy.

                It should speak volumes as to the bankruptcy of not only the system of Marxism, but to the notion of subjective human morality, that the more pure level of that moral code, the worse human suffering is. That tells a reasonable person something.

                Frankly, your estimation of America’s founders is as ignorant as your previously exposed dearth of knowledge about “separation of church and state.”

                They had enough “empathy” to realize that authoritarianism was bad and unpleasant for all people, and worked very hard to establish a system of government that was based on objective truth and not the transient opinions of men.

                Some did own slaves, many if not most did not. And even most of those who owned slaves understood that it was inconsistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. You should read more of Thomas Jefferson’s and George Washington’s statements and actions on the matter. Many were trapped within the system before the Revolution (it was required by British law before the Revolution, and often by the state law of some states afterward).

                Thankfully, the founders were exposed to Christianity. Christianity is the ONLY religion, indeed the only philosophy, which could have produced the most free and affluent nation in history. Only Christianity is based on the principles that gave birth to the United States (e.g. that all men are created equal, that our rights come from God and not from governments or men, etc.).

                Benjamin Franklin was indeed one of the least Christian of the founders. But you probably didn’t know that it was Franklin who proposed that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention pray for God’s guidance when they weren’t getting anywhere-and that his motion for prayer formed the basis of the practice of opening congressional sessions in prayer that continues today. Or that when Franklin founded America’s first hospital, he chose the Bible’s story of the Good Samaritan for its logo, with the passage from Luke 10:35 beneath: “Take care of him and I will repay thee.” Or that when Thomas Paine, who had departed from the Christian principles he once believed in at the time of the Revolution, wrote a humanist treatise, Benjamin Franklin urged him “to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person.” And that he said, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?”

                You are entitled to walk your own road (and in America, you can be grateful that you have that freedom, because it is the first and only moral code to recognize that you are accountable to God and not government for your beliefs). However, you would do well to consider the fact that following Judeo-Christian principles, as the founders of our nation lived by, has produced the most freedom and prosperity in human history. Following Christian principles is no guarantee that you’ll be rich or trouble-free in this fallen world, but in general, Christian principles provide the best environment in which a good life is possible, because those principles were established by the person who created the universe and the moral law that governs it (and if anyone should know how to best succeed in life, it’s the person who designed it all).

              • Ryan Showalter

                We’re so close to understanding each other. I would love to have a debate about this while having some tea. It would take too long to type out what I agree or don’t agree with here at this point, so I’ll just mention some key points.

                First, I don’t think you’re being fair to socialism, or at least partially socialistic countries. Yes, there are plenty of failed or failing models for it, but there are also many highly prosperous models for it too. Many of the prosperous countries rank higher than the US on things like healthcare, education, life expectancy, quality of life, crime rate, prison system, and wealth distribution.

                You’re right about not being able to penalize. You couldn’t pull me over for a fine violation like speeding or a missing tail light. You do have the right to stop me from committing a serious crime, or arresting me if I did.

                I also can’t argue about the fact that those same countries also happen to have been based on Christian values. Honestly though, I’m not surprised. Its a religion that was made from taking the best parts of many other religions around the world. The founding fathers didn’t just have the supposed advantage of Christianity, they also had experienced the failings of other law systems. Looking at facts you can’t rule out the influences they had outside religion. Perhaps the biggest of all influences… American Indians. The Iroquois practiced freedom of speech and religion as well. They also had the separation of power in government and the system of checks and balances.

                What objectives do you think law and morals should follow? The betterment of mankind? Survival of a society? I would like to know your opinion on it.

                I do want to mention as well that views are very relevant to facts. Take Hitler for example. He saw the facts of his country in a depression, and his views influenced how he fixed the problem. You can’t argue that Germany didn’t recover from its depression because of him. That’s fact. Yet his morally horrible views it led to one of the worst atrocities of the last century, maybe millennium.

                I’ll enjoy reading your reply, but this will be the last time I respond. I’ve very much enjoyed the conversation and its made me recheck facts and look up things that I didn’t remember as well as I thought.

              • Bob Ellis

                I’m being more than fair to socialism; in fact, I took it pretty easy on it before. I didn’t go into the fact that, economically, socialism is nothing but legalized plunder. Socialism steals money from some individuals and gives it to others (with a hefty percentage of the plunder sticking to the hands of those who are doing the redistribution). If I went into your house and took money from your wallet or took your computer and gave it to someone I deemed “more needy,” you would be furious and would rightly have me prosecuted for theft. It is no different when government behaves this way. And in the constitutional republic of the United States, this behavior is not only morally wrong for the government to engage in, it is completely illegal and unconstitutional since the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to create, administer, manage or execute any system of charity whatsoever-including a government health care system.

                Socialism is also an attack on freedom in that the aforementioned legalized theft not only steals property from private individuals and businesses, it steals their freedom to do with their own money (which is their property) as they wish. It also steals their freedom to make important choices about various aspects of their lives such as health care, retirement, and so much more, by forcing what would otherwise be free people to participate in narrow government-managed schemes without their consent.
                Socialism cannot operate without robbing people of their freedom and forcing them into government-approved “solutions” for things that private individuals should do for themselves, and usually can do a better job of.

                Socialism also robs business owners of their freedom to make choices about their own businesses-the businesses they put forth their own capital, time and energy to create-by regulating everything from the value of labor (a transaction properly negotiated between the giver and receiver of labor) to work conditions to almost every business decision of any consequence. It also robs the laborer of so many of these choices that they could and should otherwise work out with their prospective employer. If the government does not own the business (and there are few businesses that are government-owned), then it has no business making everyday business decisions for that business. If the government does not own the people (and it doesn’t in a free country) then it has no business interfering in employment decisions a private laborer might make freely with a prospective employer.

                While abuse of freedom has brought many ills on the United States (immorality and lawlessness has resulted in higher crime rates, diminished life expectancy, etc.), no country can match the United States for the liberty enjoyed by its citizens. No country can match the United States in prosperity among its citizenry (I lived in the UK for three years, and I’ve spent time in other socialized countries like Canada and Germany, and know firsthand that their standard of living can’t touch what we enjoy in the United States). And despite the fact that our health care system has been infected with a growing level of socialism for several decades, it remains the best in the world. Nowhere in the world is a health care system found with the level of innovation and access we enjoy in the United States (I got to experience the UK’s NHS first hand, and agreed with every one of my British friends who thought that it completely sucked).

                And you are once again mistaken about Christianity. Its roots go back to the very beginning of humanity, and all other religions are but pale and distorted shadows of it. The influence of Christian principles on the founders is unmistakably dominant, as evidenced not only by the numerous quotations and allusions to the Bible (my aforementioned examples are but a tiny handful), but also in the dearth of citations from other belief systems. To be sure, there are elements of truth to be found in almost all civilizations and belief systems, and the highly-educated and intelligent founders were well versed in classical knowledge. But more than a third of all the statements made by the founders had their basis firmly in the Bible, NOT in Iroquois practices, not in Islam, not in Buddhism, or any other belief system.

                What objectives should a legal and moral code follow? First, it should adhere as closely as possible to an objective, transcendent moral code. As I pointed out before, the only moral code that can have any real authority and applicability to all people (and only a moral code that is widely applicable has any authority or value) is one established by a proper authority which holds sway over the people it binds. Only the creator of all human beings has that kind of authority, so only a moral code established by the creator of humanity has the necessary authority; all others, as I pointed out, are nothing but the opinions of a man or group of men and carry no authority.

                The founders of this great nation recognized this when they established our nation, which is why they spoke not only of the Creator of all men as the source of our rights, but of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as the foundation of moral and legal authority. Natural law is that moral code established by the creator of humanity. Sir William Blackstone, a prominent jurist with whom the founders were very familiar, explained this:

                man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.


                Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

                Sir Edward Coke also observed of Natural Law:

                The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction, … the moral law, called also the law of nature.

                The famed Edmund Burke also put it this way:

                There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity — the law of nature, and of nations.

                It is the Natural Law to which all other law must conform if it is going to have any legitimacy, authority or universal applicability. Communism, socialism and other man-made systems are mostly if not entirely in conflict with Natural Law, and thus not only lack authority, but are condemned by the Natural Law upon which this nation is founded.

                It’s interesting that you mention Hitler (a prominent socialist). No, you can’t argue that Germany didn’t recover from its depression because of Hitler’s actions. What were Hitler’s actions? The oppression of the free market, the oppression of countless private individuals, making war on other nations (building all those tanks and planes is a real “stimulus” package), exterminating people he didn’t like, and brutal repression across every segment of society. If you want to give Hitler props for curing a depression, you’d certainly be enthused about a bullet to the head to cure a headache, or an axe to cure that aching knee.

                I should point out, too, that Hitler is yet another example of human wisdom and human morality. Though he paid mild lip service to Christianity early on when it was convenient for his goals, his moral and ethical code was purely humanistic. In other words, a moral code based on his own personal convenience, and backed up by no authority other than raw power. Or put yet another way, “Might makes right.” “Might makes right” is a great system for the powerful (as long as they remain powerful), but it’s a slice of Hell on earth for everyone else, and there is no other source of authority or accountability for man-made systems of morality.

                You may put your faith in the “wisdom” of fallen human beings, but the apt pupil of history recognizes, even from recent history, that the examples of communism and socialism (both forms of Marxism) are not only impractical in the real world, but are ultimately destructive and horrific in proportion to the thoroughness of their application.

                No rational person would choose these moral and intellectually bankrupt systems over the one crafted by the founders of the United States, which was based on Christian principles.

              • AJ Castellitto

                Oh boy, where to begin…. you seem like a solid citizen, a good guy…..but I think you’ve been led astray somewhere along the way……. But I will say that if you have a wholly secular view I could see where Marxism would seem plausible and reasonable…. but remember somebody is always running the show…. there is no such thing as a neutral governing ideology…. Somebody(s) is always calling the shots…. humanist morality is just a pliable version of Godly morality ….. the ends do not justify the means…… HE is the END and the MEANS!

              • AJ Castellitto

                The Bible already is the foundation for the laws of man….. Everything moral & good is derived from the Bible….. You have it backwards bro!

              • Ryan Showalter

                What about those that follow other religions? If Chistianity’s values were the foundation of law how could we ever say our government allows freedom of religion? That is why governments are agreed upon laws of man, with guidance from strong morals that can learned in all walks of life, which includes teaching of the bible. If we claimed “hey, are governments foundation is this religion” nearly every other person following a different religion is immediately put off by it, and its hypocritical.

              • Bob Ellis

                Because our system of government does not attempt to force theological adherence on everyone, just as Christianity does not. Christianity asserts that it is true, but it does not advocate leveraging force to make others accept it. God himself leaves people free to accept or reject his truth in this life. That’s what it means to have free will.

                Our system of government is based on Christian principles of moral behavior, Christian recognition that humanity is in a fallen and corrupted condition (which is why we have separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.) and a recognition that our rights come from the only agent in a position to grant them: our creator.

                Our system of government does not attempt to regulate theological beliefs and loyalty to a set of theological beliefs. It does not do so because, again, being based on Christain principles, Christianity does not force that on people. It presents its claims as truth, but leaves the individual free to accept or reject that truth.

                That theological freedom about Christianity has been missed by many, many, many church and government officials over the past 2,000 years-which is why the founders knew first hand that it doesn’t work well, and rejected a theocracy even though almost all of them were Bible-believing Christians.

                Everyone in America is free to believe what they want theologically, because (being founded on Christian principles) Christianity leaves everyone free to believe what they want theologically.

                I recognize this is hard for many people, in our modern highly secularized and anti-Christian culture, but a good resource for understanding how Christianity undergirds and guides the American way-while not dictating theological adherence-is Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America.” Don’t read the abridged version (I have both the unabridged and the abridged version); it leaves out so much good stuff. In it, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville visited the young America to find out what made this infant nation so fantastically wonderful and successful. (I’ll let you guess what was at the heart of the reason :-)

          • Bob Ellis

            If you have no belief in a transcendent moral law giver, how can you have anything upon which to base a moral code?

            You can, of course, try to base your moral code on flighty, subjective, changing human reason. That’s been done many, many times, especially in the modern era. Marxism is probably the most prominent expression of human “morality”…and there are some 100 million people slaughtered at the hands of this human “morality” in the past century.

            If your rights are endowed by evolution, then your “rights” are an accident and a product of pure random chance. Random chance cannot “endow” anything; it just happens. There is nothing sacred or transcendent about something that just “happens,” therefore, if you believe your “rights” to come from pure chance, then there would be nothing whatsoever wrong with someone taking your “rights” away from you, would there? But if your rights were given to you by the being who created you, and everyone else, and the entire universe itself, then the source of your rights would have AUTHORITY, and the taking of those rights would make the taker answerable to AUTHORITY.

            You seriously need to invest some time into logic.

            All but less than half a dozen of the founders were Bible-believing Christians.

            A true patriot must be a religious man. I have been led to think from a late defection, that he who neglects his duty to his Maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public. - Abigail Adams

            Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God…What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. - John Adams

            It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and imploring his blessing…Here, and throughout our country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever! - President John Adams, dedicating the U.S. Capitol Building, Nov. 22, 1800

            Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers

            Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1833

            Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. - President George Washington

            These are but a tiny handful of statements from our nation’s Christian founders which prove that you are, at best, woefully ignorant about this nation’s rich Christian heritage and Christian foundation. For your sake, as well as the sake of this nation, I strongly urge you to educate yourself and stop embarrassing yourself publicly like this.

            Then get down on your knees and thank your Creator that he allowed you to be born in a nation where our founding government document recognizes that your rights are not the flighty and arbitrary gift of men in government, but rather the inalienable legacy of the person who created the universe and everything in it, and governs that universe with transcendent justice.


            • DCM7

              “get down on your knees and thank your Creator that he allowed you to be born in a nation where our founding government document recognizes that your rights are not the flighty and arbitrary gift of men in government, but rather the inalienable legacy of the person who created the universe”

              Seeing an American showing opposition to Christian influence is like watching someone busily sawing off the very tree branch he’s sitting on.

              • Bob Ellis


              • AJ Castellitto

                Yep, the only reason we are free and ordered is Christianity…. They deserve what will come… God willing it may be their path to Christ, its sad they can’t see it now!

      • AJ Castellitto

        “I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

      • DCM7

        “Most of the founders aren’t Christian and they made it clear America is not based upon Christianity. That is no longer disputed.”
        Oh, it most certainly is disputed… because it’s false. In fact, it’s such a transparent falsehood I’m amazed that anyone falls for it.

  • Bob Ellis

    Yes, I knew from the beginning we were nowhere near each other, because you live in a world of loathing for the truth and hatred of the best nation on earth. It was obvious from the start, and despite having received considerable evidence of your error here (and it was all around you for your entire life, just waiting to be accepted), you still cling to corrosive, poisonous ideas. There’s simply no helping some people.

    These socialist propaganda pieces have been out there for years, and they’re complete bunk. The only way socialist health care systems come out ahead of free market systems (even with massive amounts of legalized plunder to fund socialist health care systems) is when you engage in myopic Michael Moore-esq “examinations” of government health care systems that ignore reality.

    Both experience (and I have that, having lived under both systems) and common sense tells you that when people who have enough wealth leave socialist health care systems to go have quality care under a comparatively free health care system (i.e. ours), as occurs countless times every year, then the socialist health care system blows chunks. Both experience and common sense tells you that when you have waiting lists that force a person to wait well over a year for treatment (as is common in socialist systems), then the socialist health care system blows chunks. Both experience and common sense tells you that when most of the real innovation comes from the comparatively free system (as it does), the socialist health care system blows chunks.

    Finally, it should be obvious to anyone with even a shred of rationality that a health care system you have to force onto people cannot possibly be anything remotely like the best, much less be considered very good at all. And all socialist systems have to be forced onto people. Very few (only the elites who engineer the cream of the crop for themselves, and the slugs who would rather have mediocrity handed to them than work for better) people choose socialism; it must be FORCED on people. That speaks all a rational person should ever need to know about the merit of socialism.

    Yes, our comparatively free system is the best in the world even after several decades of being more and more immersed in socialism and government interference that has degraded the best system in the world.

    Finally, to address your continuing ignorance (willful and otherwise) about Christianity, the facts brought to us through Christianity have been around far longer than 2,000 years. Those facts came to us through Judaism, which has been an established religion for over 1,000 years beyond that, and the lineage of the people who established both goes all the way back to the dawn of humanity. Those truths they knew have been transmitted to us down through history. You should try reading the Bible sometime. It’s amazing what you’d learn.

    And America was never intended to be a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Democracies are horrible and were deliberately rejected by the founders. And no, socialist countries only have the illusion of democracy, with elites herding the masses to the outcomes the elites desire, all the while robbing the people of their property, their prosperity and their freedom.

    America needs no change to its constitution. It was the best in the world when it was created 228 years ago, and it remains the best in the world. We only need to return to OBEYING it, which we haven’t done for approx. 70 years. It, and the Christian foundation for its principles, made us the greatest, most powerful, most prosperous, most free people in all of human history.

    Why some people like you would rather trade a legacy like that for the mediocrity and oppression of Marxism is completely beyond me. But I suppose it goes back once again to one of the many truths found in the Bible, which speaks to the depravity of the human heart: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

    • Ryan Showalter

      Hold on, did you read what I posted? I admitted I was wrong about socialism in my last reply. No need to keep railing on about it. Though how you speak of some of the parts of socialism describes taxation pretty well, and we do plenty of that already.

      Yes, we are a republic which is a representative democracy. We are democratic. If you saw the references I linked to you would see the nations ranked above us (we are #17 as of last year) are all democracies in some form, from Monarchy + Parliment to Democratic Federalists (hey, we’re that too).

      I looked at all those posts, and they are targeting mostly the countries that aren’t ranked above us. I agree Canada and UK aren’t above us and they weren’t a focus of my argument. The only countries I saw that are on the top ten that get mentioned in some of those articles are oddly specific. Also, that data is older then the data I presented. Take a look at Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. Those are the countries ahead of us. Their parliaments and congress aren’t corrupted bigots paid for by corporations and super PACs.

      Yes, and those facts in Judaism came from older religions that weren’t monotheistic. Good moral and authority codes have been followed by intelligent people for a long time. In addition, contrary to your belief I have in fact read the bible.

      • Bob Ellis

        You admitted you were wrong about a few things here and there, which is commendable in a day and age when most liberals can’t or won’t admit they are wrong about anything.

        But you continue to repeat propaganda and lies about how wonderful socialism is and how it is superior to freedom.

        All socialist countries are inferior to the United States in pretty much every way. Even after decades of socialist erosion, we are still the most free, most powerful, most prosperous, and most vibrant nation on earth. And the embrace of socialism is behind every area in which our greatness has been diminished in recent years.

        The countries you mentioned are not as bad off as the larger socialist nations (they also exhibit absolutely zero leadership in the world as well, so their mediocrity should speak for itself), but they, too experience the same sort of high costs, limited access, long waiting lists, etc. that every socialized system features. Even with the massive amounts of legalized plunder these nations use to pay for these systems (let me point that important truth out again, because you ignored it before: it requires massive amounts of government theft to pay for socialized health care), survival rates for many ailments are still much better in the United States. Of course, our government doesn’t euthanize “less valuable” citizens like they do in countries with socialized health care (at least not yet, we don’t).

        And yes, their governments are filled with corrupt elitists who live high on the hog off the productivity of the masses. You just don’t hear as much about it there because the people in those countries only enjoy a fraction of the freedom we are used to here, and are beaten down from centuries of being repressed by their nobility.

        And you conveniently forget what is perhaps the most important thing in this entire issue: the U.S. Constitution does not allow for socialism in any way, shape, form or fashion, including systems of charity, wealth redistribution, or health care. We would have to amend our constitution before any form of socialism (including what we already have, as well as any other manifestations of it that we might decide to implement) would be legal in this country.

        But the agents of socialism aren’t really trying to bring socialism to the United States in a legal fashion…because they know that if the American people had the choice presented to them clearly (as it would in an effort to amend the constitution), they would resoundingly reject it.

        Socialists can only advance their regressive ideas by either forcing them on free people, or conning free people into accepting them. That should tell you how bankrupt socialism is.

        And no, those facts in Judaism did not come from older, polytheistic religions (and as I’ve pointed out several times now, a moral code has to reflect reality-none other than the Judeo-Christian one do so fully-and it has to have authority over those it binds-and none other than the Judeo-Christian one does, certainly not made-made ideologies like Marxism). Those facts came a lineage of people that goes back to the very first two human beings, and they were written down as dictated by the one person who was there from the beginning and who has seen the whole thing, to know exactly what did and didn’t happen, and what is and is not truth: the creator of the universe himself. Many people discount the authenticity of this record from the most knowledgeable person in the universe, but its unparalleled record of veracity authenticates its reliability (even our modern textbooks are continually being revised for errors). The book has stood for thousands of years without a single scientific or historical error. People have been trying for centuries to find an error in the Bible, and none have. In fact, there are many truth claims made by the Bible that, while not contradicted, have lacked extra-Biblical confirmation initially…only to be confirmed by later archaeology, science, etc. Its unbroken record of veracity, as well as the fact that it contains truth claims that are continually being affirmed by empirical evidence, logically means even truth claims not yet verified by extra-Biblical evidence are highly credible. What’s more, as I’ve pointed out, the only country in history to found its government on Biblical principles has turned out to be the most free and affluent nation in history-an astronomical coincidence at best, but as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

        If you have read the Bible, I would suggest you go back and read it again, because you obviously missed a lot. I’ve been reading it daily for nearly 25 years, and I continually learn new things from it. And I would suggest reading it with an open mind-which is something very few people do. While a bit of skepticism is always healthy, too much (especially when it isn’t warranted or supported) can lead you to miss very important and otherwise obvious truths.

        Again, I’m glad you are able to admit to some errors. That is more than most people from your philosophical corner will do. But you are missing some rather obvious truths, apparently out of some misguided loyalty to a deeply flawed ideology that is contradicted by real life. Keep an open mind and keep searching for the truth. If you do, you will inevitably find it.

        • Ryan Showalter

          Ok, well its nice to know most of what I’ve said with evidence is being ignored now.

          Just to be clear, I DON’T want the government to be socialist. It should however, look at adopting SOME socialist policies. For example - free college education. We already do it with basic education, why not with college? The countries that have better world education ranks than we do are already doing it. (Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden) Especially in our modern times, when being specialized in a skill is so important to keeping everything going. That’s what college is for.

          Instead, we get massive loans given by the government that plague students for decades of their life. The national student debt is at 1.2 trillion and rising! Its a system of slavery payments to the government. It HAS to stop.

          Is it better to have the capitalist policy that is already in place and is bringing us down, or adopt a more socialist policy so we can step it up and be on the level of nations ahead of us.

          Which brings me to another point. I’ve presented evidence that shows we AREN’T the “best and greatest” country currently, even though we rank first in military power and economy. The populace as a whole doesn’t see this benefit of being the highest economy. Those people talking about the “1% owning 90% of the money” are RIGHT. The average CEO in america makes over 400 times the amount a normal employee makes. Does that seem fair? Does it seem right? Why/how/when did it get so out of balance? Other high ranking countries have pay between a 180:1 and 11:1 ratio. Cost of living has kept going up while average pay has stagnated for the past couple decades or more. You wonder why riots are happening, or why everything is trying to focus on the “middle class”? Its because the middle class is broke and bears the majority of the countries cost, while the rich are off the hook.

          See, its about living in a SOCIETY. Americans use to understand that when or if you became successful, you would share or help out the society in return. In the 1920’s (which reflect the 1% we have today) they stopped doing that, and abused the people less fortunate. I know you are aware what came next; The Great Depression. We learned a hard lesson about greed and capitalism then, and for three or four decades afterwards it worked. You can find charts, facts, and figures that support this. Then sometime in the 70’s, it started to go downhill again. We’ve already had a massive recession and we could suffer another Great Depression or worse if we ignore the past.

          One of the ways to helps balance things before another GD happens is through law. Taxation is something that needs to be fixed, and balanced. I’m not saying that the rich should pay taxes until they are not rich, mind you. A billionaire could pay half of his worth in taxes and still have hundreds of millions of dollars. Anyone living today will agree you could live luxuriously with that amount. So what about even 65 or 70 percent? Thats still not bad, and they would still have hundreds of millions of dollars. They are still incredibly rich. Also keep in mind that those figures are for someone who had 1 billion to start with. Most of the 1% have that or MORE. Add that up and its an incredible amount of money they should be contributing to the SOCIETY they live in. Its common sense to me. People do it when they donate to charity, or help a homeless person, its just not on the same scale as what a rich person could do. The other thing, and possibly even MORE money society needs to help it, is tax from giant corporations. They make hundreds of billions in profit a year, even over a trillion and 95% of that doesn’t help the society they pull from. Keep in mind that is PROFIT, which is after expenses like paying employees, fines, etc.

          I already said I agree that socialist governments are bad, but there are some socialist policies can be very good. At the moment there is no law in the US that effectively helps society over the rich and powerful. Evidence clearly points that we are technically an Oligarchy based on how voting has gone over the past century. I don’t think you realize that the current constitution and politics today support this. Doesn’t it make sense to create laws that balance the scale? I can’t stress enough that I’m not supporting a socialist government, but are you so blinded by your religion and views that you can’t see the EVIDENCE and FACTS that support what I’m saying? That is exactly what you said you didn’t like! Human opinion over the natural law given by God. Does God want people to be free to the point they can oppress others? Obviously not, I would think God wants us to all live healthy and prosperous lives. The constitution gives people the freedom to do what they want, but doesn’t provide protection should people in power (political or economical) become tyrants. Wouldn’t that be cause enough for either a change in the constitution or a large change in politics?

          • Bob Ellis

            It’s pretty clear to any reasonable person that it is you who has been ignoring evidence for the past several days here.

            So you’d like just some socialism, without buying the full package of oppression and mediocrity? Just a little poison in your food is okay, as long as it isn’t “too much”? Socialism doesn’t work that way, and neither does life.

            Socialism tends to be an all-or-nothing proposition, especially the longer it goes on. It’s like a cancer; it has to expand its realm or it dies. It require more and more erosion of freedom to force its policies on a once-free people, and takes more and more money to fund its inefficient programs.

            For example, your “free” college education (that hard-working taxpayers pay for). Higher education is already mediocre enough; make it “free” (i.e. so that it’s paid for involuntarily by productive people), and it’ll be even worse than our pathetic public education system (because parents will at least keep some eye on the education system of their young children, but once those children become adults…there will be far less incentive for even parents to monitor it for quality control).

            What’s more, not every American is intellectually equipped for higher education. Wasting taxpayer-funded “free” education on them, when they should already have the basics to be a productive citizen after having graduated from high school, is irresponsible at best.

            Still more, not everyone SHOULD go to college. There are many vocations out there that don’t require a college degree or any higher learning at all. Consider that some of the wealthiest people around never completed a college degree-and some of the most intelligent.

            What we learned from the Great Depression is that the free market cycle has its ups and downs (as opposed to the mediocrity and downs of socialism), and that if FDR hadn’t urinated on the U.S. Constitution and forced socialism on this country, the free market would have brought itself out of the depression in less than half the time it took to bring it out with the help of a World War to drive the wartime economy.

            It is NOT the government’s role to decide how much money people make and how much property they can have. That is oppressive, and completely opposed to every ideal upon which this nation was founded. The founders made that clear with the limited-government constitution they created which granted only a few specific powers to the federal government, as well as in numerous other statements they made:

            The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted. - James Madison

            Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. - Thomas Jefferson

            [T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution. - Alexander Hamilton

            A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. - James Madison

            The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams

            The only fair form of taxation is one where EVERY person pays the same rate. Greedy socialists should still be happy with that, since a wealthy person will still pay vastly larger amounts of money than a poor person. But each person pays the same percentage of their income, which is fair. Progressive taxation is a Marxist tenet designed to grow the state and punish those the elitists deem “too successful.” Government has no legitimate role whatsoever (either moral or legal under the constitution) in deciding how much of the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep. That is totally un-American and repugnant to liberty. A government empowered to take property from some Americans is able to wield power over ALL Americans, and only a myopic idiot ignores the fact that the political winds that can punish people YOU hate today, may shift tomorrow to punish YOU.

            “Father of the Constitution” James Madison had some thoughts on uneven taxation:

            A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

            I am well aware of current politics, and of the fact that we now operate as a de facto oligarchy (where judges and a few other powerful elites wield the power that is God-given and should be protected by the U.S. Constitution), and of exactly what constitution we have had and still have. The U.S. Constitution STILL makes illegal any form of socialism, and STILL makes illegal any usurpation of power by the federal government not specifically authorized in Article 1 Section 8. The fact that a large number of Americans have grown lazy and no longer hold their government accountable for its illegal actions does not change the fact that those actions remain completely ILLEGAL. If you lived in a thoroughly corrupt city (think Detroit, or worse) where the rule of law was a complete mockery and government officials ignored the law with impunity, would you argue that anyone who objected to that state of affairs “just doesn’t realize the current situation”? Of course not.

            We already have all the law we need for fairness and justice; that law is simply being ignored, buried under a mountain of socialistic law that makes a mockery of fairness and justice. And because you, like most people who ignorantly love socialism, probably don’t understand this, let me point out that egalitarianism and equality of outcomes is not even remotely the same thing as justice and fairness. Because many people are unable or unwilling to work harder to earn and accumulate more, you can NEVER have equality of outcomes without illegally and immorally taking property from one person and giving it to another. For people who have a genuine and acute need that they cannot meet for themselves, there is family and private charity (and as history shows, when you empower government to redistribute wealth, more people than the genuine needy end up “on the take” from their fellow hard-working citizens). For those who have less because they work less hard, in a fair and just system, there is simply less for them. (As an example, I have turned down jobs that paid considerably higher than I was making, because I did not want to work under the conditions required to hold that job. Others were willing, and they are fairly entitled to that extra money that I did not make).

            To return to fairness and justice (as well as our previously enjoyed level of liberty and greatness), we must repeal all these “pretend laws” (as the Declaration of Independence calls them) and return to adherence to the U.S. Constitution and its limits on government. We once understood that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not bring active harm on another person or property, and that government is the worse threat to liberty and prosperity there ever was.

            Thomas Jefferson, one of the least Christian of the founders, recognized this (as well as recognizing the Christian doctrine of the fallen nature of humanity) when he said of those who run government:

            In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

            Because as George Washington put it:

            Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master

            That’s why the founders severely limited the power of the federal government when they established the U.S. Constitution, as explained by James Madison in Federalist No. 45:

            The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.

            Americans have NEVER historically agreed with or wanted to be a part of a socialist collective; you’re living in a Leftist fantasyworld of historical revision. Americans have since before the founding of our nation been a people who cherish liberty and self-determination, the freedom to live their lives as they see fit without interference from government meddling. Did you miss the entire point of the American Revolution??? You should not only read the preamble of our founding document (which recognizes that our liberties come from our Creator, not from government), but also the itemization of the reasons why we told the most powerful empire on earth to take a flying leap. It was because of all the authoritarian interference from government.

            If you’re so in love with repressive, mediocre socialist countries (and you’ve made it more than apparent that you are), you should move to one of those cesspools and stop trying to ruin the greatest nation in history. I’ve lived in and visited some of those places. They suck. Great place to visit for the history, but beyond that, they’re filled with taxation, government repression, and a sheep-like people who don’t even begin to realize the amount of God-given liberty they’ve been robbed of by their “betters.”

            Though you’ve commendably admitted to your ignorance in a few minor areas, it has become painfully clear that you aren’t interested in the truth at all-about our nation’s laws and foundation, about Christianity, or about much of anything except promoting more of the socialist poison that has been killing this great nation. It’s frankly amazing that you claim to not support socialism in one breath, and in the very next laud socialism and advocate more of it! The dichotomy is truly unreal!

            I had some hope that you might come to “get it,” especially when you admitted to a few errors, but it’s awfully hard for most people to admit they’ve been wrong about their fundamental assumptions, even when it’s made clear to them. It’s even harder when, like you, they aren’t even on the same page as historical American values and principles. It’s very hard to understand how fantastically wonderful and unique the American system is, when you can’t even accept the most fundamental principle upon which the nation was founded in the first place, i.e. that our rights come from God, not government.

            This website exists to educate the public on the truth, not perpetuate error and lies. I’ve done my best to help educate you about the truth and the greatness of your country, but you’ve made it obvious you don’t want to accept the truth. I don’t have time to repetitively refute your socialist propaganda, so we’ll have to bring this to an end, and hope that some of it sinks in so that you might come around some day.

            • Ryan Showalter

              I completely agree with ending the discussion. You’ve ignored and refused to even acknowledge or discuss any of the facts I’ve presented, continued to not even mention the same countries as I have, and also continue to insult my views as being some sort of socialist supporter of leftist extremist (which I HATE political labels by the way, they take away from objective debates), when I’ve stated and shown numerous times that thats not the case. I never said everyone should have to go to college, it would still be up to the individual. Yep, many successful people in my field have left college before they earned degrees (Bill Gates to name one) and I don’t dispute that there are people who can find jobs without it either. I’m not sure why you are trying to debate on points I’m not even bringing up. You in a way agreed that America needs to fix itself, but your answer for how to do it was to sit and watch it play out. You agreed, yet also think we’re the best thing ever, though being in the top 20 countries in the world is amazing.

              Sadly, there’s simply no use arguing with a wall that repeats itself and can’t even see the evidence presented directly for viewing.

              For anyone else reading our interesting discussion, I hope you take both my advice and his; read, educate yourself, learn the REAL facts and don’t be afraid to accept evidence that you disagree with. People can broaden their views and become better for it.

              • Bob Ellis

                I have discussed and debunked virtually every major and most minor points you have attempted to make. Just because you wish things were a certain way in Leftist fantasyland does not make that reality. That is a common failing among Leftists-to pretend the world works in ways that it does not, and that things are things that they are not.

                The reason you hate labels is because they clearly categorize exactly what you are and what you believe. That is another common characteristic of people who embrace dangerous, destructive and counterproductive ideas-they don’t like people to recognize that.

                You’re right about one thing: if people will take the time to stop living in fantasyland and research the actual FACTS, we’ll all be a lot better off. The proof is in the pudding: America became the most free and prosperous nation in all of human history not by embracing bankrupt human ideas, but by embracing the timeless, transcendent Christian principles that teach us how to live the way the creator of the universe intended us to.

                I hope someday you’ll have the courage to do that.

              • Ryan Showalter

                Dude, I don’t know what a leftist even is. Its another word to me. Labels are horrible, you have to look at the individual’s views on specific issues. Take an american Biker for example. He has a label on him, and many people automatically assume that they are generally bad people. In reality, some of the nicest people can be Bikers. A closer example would be Bernie Sanders. Many people are trying to call him a socialist for some of his suggesting policies, but those policies are trying to fix the Oligarchy problem in America you’ve ADMITTED is real. I don’t see any solution you’ve offered other than “people aren’t following the law.” Well that doesn’t help SOLVE the problems now does it?

                Please, SHOW me some of these FACTS you haven’t yet, because I’ve PROVED you otherwise with references and citations, and you continue to ignore them. Please, SHOW me how forcing students to go into debt is logical. Please, SHOW me how corporation CEO’s earning 400 times what their employees do is fair. Please, SHOW me how our healthcare is the greatest when we spend twice as much as Sweden, yet get the same result. Please, SHOW me how our education system is amazing, when the US isn’t even in the top 25 countries. (with the exception of Maine, they are #5 on the list.) Please, SHOW me how we are the most free country, when we are only #12 on the world ranking list.

                You CAN’T, because the evidence doesn’t exist. People need to stop believing we are the best, and instead strive for it. As we sit on our asses thinking how great we are, the world is starting to leave us behind. But please, share with me you cited and referenced facts. All you’ve linked so far is a single website stating we are better than Canada and the UK. (which on the lists I’VE presented, I already knew we are)

              • Bob Ellis

                Go look in the mirror and you’ll find out what a Leftist is. Or you could get really radical and go look in a dictionary. If you did, you’d find that a Leftist is one who advocates or adheres to the doctrines of the Left, and the Left has for decades embraced Marxism. That’s who you are. You think labels or horrible because you don’t like being identified with the bankrupt, corrosive and immoral philosophies you love. You want to advocate for what is wrong without being labeled as wrong.

                The only solution to people breaking the law is to hold the lawbreakers accountable and restore respect and adherence for the law. Passing more laws won’t make people adhere to the law-they’re already giving it the middle finger. The American people are the ultimate authority in our country because, as the founders recognized, government can only operate legitimately by the consent of the governed. So it is up to the governed to rise up and hold the lawbreakers in our government accountable. Otherwise, the lawlessness, disorder, theft, injustice and oppression will just continue and get worse.

                As I have pointed out before, no one FORCES a student to go into debt. Some people CHOOSE to go into debt for an education, whether they need to or not. It is not the responsibility of the hard-working taxpayer to pay for their higher education…or pay for their drunken partying for four years.

                And I never said our education system was so wonderful. It blows chunks after around a century of Leftists like yourself turning it from an institution to each people facts and how to think, into an indoctrination machine of mediocrity. The pathetic state to which Leftists have reduced our education system is the reason why millions of families like mine go to the additional expense and effort (above the money taken out of our pockets via legalized plunder to pay for a pathetic public education system) to homeschool our children. And at a fraction of the cost of the average public school student, my children run rings around public education scores-and they aren’t turned into compliant little socialist sheep.

                Whether corporate CEOs earn 400 times what their employees do is none of your business. It’s none of the government’s business. It’s no one’s business except (a) an employee who works there (and if the employee doesn’t like their wages, they have the wonderful freedom in America to go down the road and look for a job that will pay them more, or (b) a customer of that company (who, as a recipient of the wonderful freedom we enjoy in America, has the liberty to refuse to do business with that company. Beyond that, it’s none of your business and none of the governments. It isn’t government’s business morally (government has no legitimate authority to take property from one person and give it to another person), and it isn’t the American government’s business because the U.S. Constitution does not give authority to the federal government to do that. You’re advocating more lawlessness!

                You can look up for yourself the areas where medical outcomes are as good or greater than those of Sweden-a country where they engaged in legalized plunder to take from some citizens to give to others, which is something that is not only immoral, but is constitutionally illegal to do in the United States. What’s more, most of the negative disparities for the U.S. are because of lifestyle choices rather than the actual quality of the health care system. In other words, it’s rather difficult for even the best health care system to overcome the health problems that can result from bad lifestyle choices such as lack of exercise (in some ways, our affluence from our unparalleled liberty may be our downfall if not managed responsibly), substance abuse, etc.-much of which is seen in poverty-ridden segments of society that are poverty-ridden because of-you guessed it-the all-out war on morality and responsibility being waged by the Left in this country. Further, the United States health system is world renowned for its innovation…but that’s something that we’re slowing down on, thanks to the creeping illegal socialism with which we are strangling our free market system.

                One thing you’re right about is the fact that in the past 6 years or so, the United States has slipped from being the most free. Thanks again to Leftists like yourself you are foaming at the mouth to utterly annihilate freedom where ever they find it-in the free market, in the financial industry, in health care, and virtually every area of life. But my hopes are that this is an aberration in our 239 year history, and that maybe Americans have seen enough devastation to our way of life in recent years to regain their sanity and replace the socialist usurpers in our government with leaders who understand and appreciate the American way.

                You-like all Leftists-are truly unbelievable. You live in another world, and what’s worse, you can’t even accept the truth by being led to the truth and having your nose shoved in it. What makes it even worse is that you are hell-bent on trading the best, most precious legacy of liberty the world has ever known…for the chains of oppression from a dumb-ass government that can’t even build a functioning government health care website after four years and $2.1 billion (stolen unconstitutionally from the American taxpayer). My goodness! How freaking stupid can an adult human being be??? (North Korea or Cuba would fit you well)

                I’m sorry I wasted so much time on you. Hopefully at least some open-minded person who happens by might benefit from the wealth of information I’ve wasted at your feet here.

      • DCM7

        “Judaism came from older religions that weren’t monotheistic.”
        No, that’s just a currently popular belief. There is no factual basis for that claim (to put it mildly).

  • Bob Ellis

    Probably another waste of time here, but I’ll make one last effort…

    You really should do some basic research before continuing to embarrass yourself. Zoroastrianism, as your material points out, came along around 600 BC. Judaism was primarily defined by the Torah which dates to around 1300 BC-some 700 years before Zoroastrianism. The Torah forms the core, the bedrock, and the foundation of Judaism. By the time of Zoroaster, there were only a few prophetical books remaining to be written to round out the Old Testament, and they are all harmonious with the doctrine of the Torah, the wisdom books, and the other prophetical books of the Old Testament.

    Did it ever occur to you that fakes and frauds emulate the genuine article? They often look very similar to the genuine article, but they are not the genuine article. In other words, the genuine article influences the fake, the fake does not influence the genuine article.

    Please, do yourself a favor. Try studying the book with the greatest (unbroken) record of veracity in history with an open mind and a humble heart. If you do, you’ll be amazed at the wisdom you can gain…and the positive change it can make in your life.

  • DCM7

    Just keep in mind that there is a LOT of pseudo-scholarship out there when it comes to the Bible. My experience has been that certain claims might sound convincing until you take the time to actually check them out. Claims like “things in the Bible were influenced by an older belief system” are routinely exposed as utter nonsense, but a lot of people simply don’t bother finding this out.

    • franklinb23

      There’s not a lot of scholarship, period. I’d venture to also say that many who claim to believe in the Bible have never actually read the whole thing.

      Here’s the problem: Scripture is not self-evident. Stories are related without informing the reader of the intent behind them whether it’s the story of Job or Abraham and Isaac or Lot. You just get the bare facts and the reader is left to arrive at the deeper meaning on their own (unless you’re a Catholic and theological interpretation is left up to a body of clerics).

      The Bible read by Benny Hinn and TD Jakes is the same book read by John MacArthur, Bart Ehrman and theologian Karl Barth. Same book, vastly different interpretations and understandings.

      • DCM7

        “There’s not a lot of scholarship, period.”
        That’s just plain false.

        “I’d venture to also say that many who claim to believe in the Bible have never actually read the whole thing.”
        That’s a popular, modern myth among people who don’t believe the Bible. They see some of the “difficult” stuff and lazily conclude that most Christians just must not know about it. The fact is that we do know about it, and (unlike the non-believers) we know where it all fits into the picture.

        “Same book, vastly different interpretations and understandings.”
        Actually you’d be surprised how much general, common understanding there is of the Bible among those who aren’t trying to make it say something it doesn’t.

        • Bob Ellis

          I completely agree.

          While it’s true that many of the historical events conveyed in the Bible are laid out “without informing the reader of the intent,” it isn’t difficult at all to glean most of the important lessons to be learned from them.

          Most of the moral and theological lessons are self-evident, also. While there are a few issues of relatively lesser significance that the Bible does not make clear, most can be understood with some study and contextual analysis.

          “We can’t know” is a convenient excuse from those who don’t want to know. Just like the school kid who whines “Math is too hard!” He just doesn’t want to invest the time to understand math.

          And of course, when you don’t want to live by your creator’s standard in the first place, there are all the excuses in the world not to.

          • franklinb23

            Bob writes: “it isn’t difficult at all to glean most of the important lessons to be learned from them.”

            I still can’t figure out how one is “saved” and gets to Heaven, and this is supposed to be the easiest thing to determine.

            There are four possible options:

            1) One is saved by good works, regardless of what one believes. This mean’s that God will forgive errors in what you believe, but not unethical actions (assuming you can determine what those are).

            2) One is saved by orthodox beliefs, regardless of works. This means God will overlook errors in behavior but not in belief. He’s a strict theology professor who does not grade on a curve, so to speak, but He also doesn’t care how hard you party, so long as you study for the test.

            3) Those who are saved will be saved purely by the grace of God, regardless of their actions or beliefs.

            4) One is saved by a combination of good actions and right beliefs (both of which, individually, are necessary but insufficient).

            Protestant theology leans (2), Catholic theology on (4). The problem with (2) is this: if salvation requires belief, we’re really saying that salvation hinges on cognitive works, so that’s kind of (4), anyhow.

            Here’s another problem: why does our belief or knowledge of the atonement matter at all? If Christ died to save your soul, shouldn’t it have worked?

            I don’t expect answers, of course. I’m just reading and thinking out loud.

            • Bob Ellis

              1) You aren’t saved by good works. The Bible is extremely clear on this.

              For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

              For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

              they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone (Romans 9:32)

              But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. (Romans 11:6)

              we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

              Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? (Galatians 3:2)

              For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10)

              For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

              he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)

              When Martin Luther studied the Bible (not just relied on what other people told him, but studied for himself), he found that it is by grace we are saved through faith and not of works. When he realized this, it changed not only his life, it changed the world.

              God will forgive both errors in belief and unethical actions, if one has placed their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God whose sacrificial death on the cross is is accepted by God has having paid for those errors and sins. The only error/sin that won’t be forgiven is not accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as atonement for our sins.

              2) One is not saved by orthodox beliefs, other than those that point us directly (a) toward our sinful condition as needing salvation, and (b) Christ as the only agent of that needed salvation


              3) Yes!

              4) Answered in #1 and #2. As the book of James points out, if one is saved by faith, then good works will be the natural fruit of such a condition.

              As to your question “If Christ died to save your soul, shouldn’t it have worked?,” it did work. But like every gift, it must be accepted. Like every pardon, it must be accepted. The way one accepts this gift/pardon is to place one’s faith in Jesus Christ as having the STANDING to purchase our forgiveness (he has this standing by being a human like the rest of us, yet having no sins of his own to pay for like the rest of us do), and having faith that God accepts that intercession as just payment on our behalf-and the Bible indicates that God DOES accept this.

              It isn’t so much necessary to consciously understand every aspect of this truth, but on some level a person has to have the humility to understand and agree with God that (a) we are all sinners who fall short of his standard, and (b) that Jesus taking our punishment for us is acceptable to the Judge of the Universe to bridge that shortfall. That’s why a person can’t be saved and enter the Kingdom of God if they insist that their sins aren’t sins. Christ came and died for sinners, not perfect people, and someone who insists their sins aren’t sins cannot have those sins covered by Christ’s pardon because they’re insisting there is nothing TO pardon.

              This is probably what keeps most people out of heaven. They claim their sins aren’t sins, and until a person lets go of the sins to take hold of the pardon, you don’t have the pardon, you only have your sins-and no one can enter sinless heaven holding onto their sins.

        • franklinb23

          Do you consider theological issues like limited atonement, predestination, trans-substantiation, the papacy, infant baptism and cessationism (vs continuationism) to be minor or peripheral issues?

          • DCM7

            Something like predestination might indeed be considered relatively minor, in the sense that no position on it is worth really fighting for, so to speak. Most of the others you name are not biblically “disputable” in the first place, in the sense that anyone with a basic understanding of the Bible would know what position to take on them (i.e., trans-substantiation is nonsense, there is no basis for having a Pope, infant baptism doesn’t save anyone, etc.).

            There are issues that are far more crucial, and about which the Bible is even clearer, and yet people will even dispute those. That’s not an issue of the Bible being hard to understand; it’s an issue of people refusing to accept that which can clearly be known.

            • franklinb23

              Well, you just wrote off as “nonsense” the beliefs of about a billion Catholics! Of course, I agree that a communion wafer is nothing more than a piece of bread but some would find such a comment to be blasphemous.

              Or not. I sometimes think folks contort their brains to try to believe something they really don’t believe. That might be a good example of it.

              • DCM7

                “Well, you just wrote off as ‘nonsense’ the beliefs of about a billion Catholics!”
                And I make no apologies for that, nor would I do so if I had said something about the beliefs of, say, Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. The same even goes for some stuff I’ve heard from certain Protestant groups. As I’ve said, basic Biblical truth is not that hard to know, and people who claim to be going by the Bible have no excuse for holding on to certain errors, however popular they may be.