Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Monday, November 11, 2024

Shocking News You've Never Heard!

It's one of the greatest stories never told. Though it is true, and perhaps because it is true, you will not hear it in any news reports or read about it in most history textbooks. It is never mentioned by any modern politician, in any political party, at any level of local or national leadership. The silence is deafening.

Let's begin with a question. What did our great nation’s original states say about the Christian faith in their founding documents? What did they require of their lawmakers religiously?

You haven’t heard? You don't know? Get ready for a surprise.

Andrew Schwartz wrote the following article, from which I will quote directly. Using a broad definition of the term “Christian,” he has compiled this information from the state constitutions of our nation’s foundational thirteen colonies.

If you have not seen this before, probably neither have others in your family and in your circle of influence. They likely do not realize how the nation began and what the colonies once required of their lawmakers. Consider forwarding this link to them so that they will be informed. Now get ready. Here's the shocking news you've never heard. Pass it on!

---

Delaware—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Delaware is explicitly Christian, requiring an oath or affirmation of faith in the Trinity and acknowledging the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture—both the Old and New Testaments. Article 22 reads, “I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Pennsylvania—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Similar to Delaware, Pennsylvania requires an oath unto God (although leaving out the trinitarian formula) and the acknowledgement of the divine nature of Holy Scripture. Pennsylvania uniquely affirms God as the consummate governor, reminding lawmakers of their due submission unto him and his word. Section 10 reads, “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”

New Jersey—1776—On qualifications for legislative office: New Jersey goes a step beyond Pennsylvania, requiring not simply a profession of faith in God as part of the universal church, but more specifically a belief in any Protestant sect, in order to meet the requirements for public office, as well as to be protected in their civil rights. Article 19 reads,

[T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

Georgia—1777—On qualifications for legislative office: Georgia, too, explicitly required Christian Protestantism as a staple for public office. Article 6 states, “The representatives… shall be of the Protestant religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.”

Connecticut—1818—On preference of worship and civil rights: Connecticut guarantees religious liberty for “any christian sect,” and guarantees equal rights,
powers, and privileges for “each and every society or denomination of christians.” But it does not guarantee religious liberty, nor even equal rights and treatment,
to non-Christians in the state. Article 1.4 reads, “No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship.” And Article 7.1 says, “each and every
society or denomination of christians in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges.”

Massachusetts—1780—On religious rights: Like Connecticut, Massachusetts establishes equal protection of the law only for denominations of Christians. Likewise, those who did not profess Christianity were disqualified from public office. Part 1, Article 3 states, “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to an other shall ever be established by law.” Part 2, Chapter 2, Article 2 declares, “no person shall be eligible to this office [of governor]… unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.” Lastly, Part 2, Chapter 6, Article 1 proclaims, “Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative…shall…make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.: ‘I, A.B., do declare that I believe in the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth…”

Maryland—1776—On religious liberty: Though historically Roman Catholic in culture, the state of Maryland generalized its protection of religious liberty to those “professing the Christian religion,” but did not grant that same protection to those who did not make the same profession. Declaration of Rights, 33 reads, “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty… the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion.”

South Carolina—1778—On the establishment of a religion: South Carolina is as explicitly Christian as any of the original states. The introduction below speaks for itself, but the entire resolution in Article 38 is even more prescriptive in its state Christianity. Article 38 declares,

“[A]ll persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.”

New Hampshire—1792—On the support of religion for the security of government: New Hampshire again sponsors equal protection of the law, but only for denominations of Christians. New Hampshire also grounds its civil and moral philosophies on evangelical [i.e., gospel] principles, and authorizes the legislature publicly to support only “protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” Article 6 states,

As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provisions, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality…[E]very denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and as good subjects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the law.

New Hampshire is explicitly Protestant Christian and evangelical (Christian gospel), and it does not authorize the legislature to support non-Christian religions.

Virginia—1776—On religious liberty: Virginia is the first state on our list (in state order) that does not explicitly make itself a Christian state. While it does apply an obligation of religion to “our Creator,” it also goes out of its way to place “reason and conviction” and “the dictates of conscience” as the governors of that duty. One can infer an implicit call to Christianity at best in the Declaration of Rights. Section 16 reads, “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” We can conclude that this was not explicitly Christian.

New York—1776—On religious liberty: Similar to Virginia, New York protects religious liberty, while never calling for a Christian preference in worship or establishment. It does briefly allude to traditionally Christian virtues, but also calls the state to guard against “the bigotry of weak and wicked priests,” and calls Christian preference “repugnant to this constitution.” New York was explicitly not a Christian state. Article 38 reads, “this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”

North Carolina—1776—On qualifications for office: While not as explicitly establishmentarian as her Southern Sister, North Carolina similarly holds Protestant Christianity in legal preference, requiring its affirmation for public office. Article 32 states, “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

Rhode Island—1843—On religious liberty: Rhode Island, our thirteenth state, is a strange case, since it didn’t formally adopt a constitution until 1843. Their charter of 1663 is explicitly Christian, and they were technically governed by this charter even after independence in 1776, but it is questionable whether that religious governance was in practice or in name only. In its 1843 constitution, it turned decidedly a-Christian, requiring no religious test for public office, and speaking only of a general God, rather than a Christian or Protestant God. Article 1.3, Section 3 states,

We, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity.

So, of the thirteen original states to ratify the Constitution, ten states were indisputably and explicitly Christian states either at the time of ratification, or shortly thereafter. Hypothetically, had they bullied their position, they as states could have amended the federal Constitution to provide equal protection only to Christians, and required adherence to Christianity as a qualification for office.

---

Again, my sincere thanks to Andrew Schwartz for compiling and publishing this vital information. Let us not merely bemoan what once was. Let us show up, stand up, and speak up for what one day may be!

Friday, October 14, 2016

How I Will Vote and Why

If you wish to comment on this post, please email your response to CoryBlogVote@outlook.com, with your full name, so that I may reply. Thanks.

First let me state a couple of disclaimers. For one, I am presenting here my own personal views, which do not necessarily represent any particular group, church, or party. For another, I respect the right and responsibility of each individual to vote as he or she chooses. However, I have been asked what I will do in this election, and I feel responsible to do so.

I am repulsed and disgusted by both candidates at the “top” of their respective major tickets. I cannot support the morality or character of either one. I cannot put a sign in my yard or a bumper sticker on my car. I believe that the fear of God, morality, honesty, respect, integrity, humility, and transparency are indispensable qualities which our leaders must possess. These essential traits are noticeably absent. Our political process has degraded so far in this “race to the gutter” that it makes me weep for our great nation.

Beyond my shock over these two candidates is an even greater sorrow. I am stunned by our people! I am utterly amazed that the citizens of America have produced, supported, and promoted these individuals. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump are not the primary problem; they are the product of the primary problem. They are the symptoms, not the illness. Our fellow Americans have rejected biblical values and honorable candidates. The majority has rejected more than a few candidates who were honorable, moral, and reputable. Instead, character and conduct no longer seem to matter to tens of millions. We as a people are getting what we deserve, what we have chosen.

Arrogance. Narcissism. Profanity. Lewd, lustful language. Degrading comments against women and minorities. Racism. Deception. Late-night, self-centered “tweets.” Some tax returns not made public. CEO-type, celebrity-type pronouncements. Absolutely awful. Then there is alleged criminal behavior. An illegal private email server. Deleted classified emails. Possible major health challenges. The wife of a past President, whose immoral behavior disgraced the office and the nation … the same wife who allegedly went out to silence and shame her husband’s victims … the same woman now innocently taking up for such women as her opponent is accused of similar behavior. Again, absolutely awful. A news media machine out of control, with not even a pretense of objectivity or fairness. It’s all just wrong. 

Who could ever try to justify any of it? The argument seems to be, “Vote for me, because my opponent is even worse than I am!” Whichever candidate can make the other look the worst stands to win.

Here’s another thing. Are these two major parties unable to produce honorable, high-character, law-abiding candidates? Can they not vet prospects and eliminate those with alleged criminal records, poor political performance, and questionable morality?

So will I vote? I certainly will! For whom?

Can I find any other criteria for voting, since so much of this is so disgusting? Some will choose either not to vote or to vote for a third option. I respect each choice.

Here is what I will do.

Since I cannot conscientiously support the “top” of either ticket, I have decided to vote for the vice-presidential candidate who would advise the President and step in if necessary. This is an easy choice for me, when I consider Mr. Pence with his faith and values. Mr. Pence is vocal in expressing his faith, in supporting unborn human life, and in upholding marriage and gender as God designed them. In the VP debate he called himself a Christian, named Jesus Christ, and quoted the Bible directly.

Since I cannot vote for the person, I will vote for the platform. When I compare the two parties’ platforms, as I did via the link below, my choice becomes clear. The topics that are compared include Human Life, Planned Parenthood, Judges, Religious Liberty, Education / School Choice, Sex Education, Obamacare, Marriage, Biomedical Research, and Iran. Take a look for yourself. Please.


Does the platform comparison help you? It helped me. It seems to me that the one choice is a far better platform, a conservative one, with a candidate who will hopefully uphold it and a party that will hopefully stick with it. I realize that the candidate and / or the party may not follow through to the extent that I would wish, but the other platform is not an option for me. It is far worse, based on a clearly liberal agenda, with a candidate that I am convinced will take the country farther down that path.

I will vote for a Constitution-based Supreme Court. The next President will appoint new Justices who will be on the bench for decades to come. An activist Court will mean a further departure from biblical truth. Such a Court has already assumed absolute power by redefining marriage in defiance of God’s created order. Then the Attorney General tried to take over the nation’s restrooms, insisting that biological males had the right to enter female facilities. Let’s wake up! It’s later than many of us may realize! When the time comes that Constitution-based Justices are outnumbered, the Court will have absolute power to redefine every aspect of morality in the name of “choice,” “political correctness,” etc.

I will vote for religious freedom and freedom of speech. Both have been eroding in the past seven years and are now hanging by a thread.

I will vote for the right of preachers, religious leaders, and churches to declare God’s truth no matter how “political” it may seem. No church should be threatened with the loss of its tax-exempt status as a result of its boldness in political matters. I will vote for the “Johnson Amendment” to be repealed, with its attempt to silence churches.

I will vote for the right to define sin as the Bible does (regarding homosexual conduct, for example). I will vote for the right to practice the Christian religion without fear of recrimination. I will vote against the further growth of atheism, secular humanism, and Darwinian evolutionary belief.

I will vote for male-female marriage and the family as God intended it to be. The home is the primary building block of a stable society. To me it is beyond doubt that our culture is suffering as a direct consequence of deliberate attacks against the traditional family.

I will vote for the protection of unborn human life. Mrs. Clinton has said publicly that the unborn person has no constitutional rights. (How can she call it a “person” and deny it the right to life, which our Constitution guarantees?)


I will vote against the funding of Planned Parenthood, whose destruction of human life is unspeakable.

I will vote for parents and local leaders, not a federal bureaucracy, to oversee our children’s education.

I will vote for individual freedom and responsibility.

I will vote against socialism. I do not believe that U.S. taxpayers can finance “free” services that we cannot afford, such as college education for all. In the past two terms socialist programs have expanded, and our nation is on the brink of financial disaster. We simply cannot keep spending money that we do not have.

I will vote for truly “affordable” health care. The “Affordable Care Act” is exactly the opposite for many Americans. Remember the President’s oft-repeated promises? “You can keep your plan and keep your doctor. The typical family will save $2500 per year.” It turned out that none of that was true. Many of us have seen our premiums climb 40% or more, with our deductibles and copays increased significantly. My own health plan will not be available in 2017, because the company – one of many – cannot afford the “Affordable” Care Act. I do not believe that citizens should be guaranteed health insurance as a “right,” any more than life insurance or burial insurance. I do not believe that young, healthy people should be forced to buy insurance or else be penalized by the federal government. There has to be a better way! Even Bill Clinton called the ACA "crazy."


I will vote for the poor. I love the poor! We as a nation must do better to care for our poor. After the past seven years, the poor are worse off than they were before. I will vote for whatever may help the poor to reverse the poverty cycle, increase independence and self-reliance, and enjoy greater economic prosperity. Perhaps lower taxes could enable businesses to create more jobs and employ those who are currently out of work. That could help the poor, stimulate the economy, and benefit all who are involved. According to the 2012 Census information cited below, 35.4% of all the people in this country were receiving federal welfare benefits, as of the fourth quarter of that year. This information is taken from the following sources:

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare
http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/publications/tables/hsehld-char.html

I will vote against increasing debt. During the last seven years our nation’s debt has almost doubled, to a staggering $19 trillion. Yes, trillion. Either we will pay that debt, or our children will, or our nation’s economy will collapse.

I will vote for human rights in all the nations with whom we do business. We simply must not reward nations that mistreat their own people.

I will vote against ISIS, against terrorism, and against nations like Iran developing nuclear warheads. In the past two terms, we have greatly declined in these area.

I will vote against four more years of our current national leadership. In the recent past, under this administration, we have declined in many areas and have lost much of the respect we once enjoyed.

I will vote for American independence as a sovereign nation. I will vote against “open borders.” I will vote against “pay for play” and money to nations that sponsor terrorism.

I will vote against the mainstream, liberal media. I am sick of the media choosing a liberal candidate and throwing their collective weight behind that person. I am sick of so-called “journalists” unabashedly attacking and entrapping people that they don’t like, while giving their favored candidate a pass. There is something deep within me that does not want such people to get their way.

Once again, these are my thoughts.

May America bless God, and may God bless America!