Apologetics – Page 94

In Praise of Hatred

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

Perhaps no emphasis in the 21st century church has been more pronounced the the necessity to “love,” to “be loving,” and to not be guilty of “lacking love.” Such teaching has been around for a very long time in the Church in the West and it has resulted in the enervation of the Church.

This is due, of course, to the fact that the word “love” has also been drained of its meaning. When love becomes a universal instinct so that all men everywhere must be “loved” no matter what then “love” is a word that has no meaning.

In order for the word “love”to have any meaning it must have borders of definition where it ends and another disposition begins. In order for “love” to have meaning it must hate. Love, in order to be love, must hate.

The Lord Christ supports this,

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both…”

You see here that love cannot co-exist without hate. This tells us that the idea that “we should never” hate is non-Biblical and anti-Christ in its roots. Love without hate is an absurdity. A man will only love as deeply as he also hates. From this we must say that hate, properly oriented, is an absolute virtue. Hate, properly oriented, is the natural outgoing of love and this is so much the truth that without hate love cannot exist.

“We do urge hate; if you love something, that love requires you to hate anything which threatens it.”

Matthew Hale.

Here we see that positive “hate” is a positive good because it is the recoiling action of proper love. Even for those people who insist that they must only love and that to hate anything would be ignoble and sinful we find a residual hatred of all those who disagree with them that love must be ubiquitous. The “love-everybody-ers” end up hating those who actively employ properly directed “hate.”

That our culture has fallen into this “war against hate” nonsense can be seen by our preoccupation with hate crimes. Increasingly, the penalty for a crime is far graver if it can be proved that someone committed their crime because of a particular hatred. Never-mind that all crime presupposes hate at some base level. Never-mind that what is required with this kind of legislation is the ability to prove, and then try to disprove, a presence of a state of mind. This whole body of law turns already disreputable lawyers into the category of the even more disreputable shrink.

As Christians we must come to the point where we pray that the Triune God would not only give us proper love but also proper hate. Our prayer is that we would hate that which is evil. Our prayer is that we would hate what God hates. Our prayers should be that we hate injustice and Marxist concepts of social justice dressed up as God pleasing and defined justice. Our prayer is that we would demonstrate the strength of our love by the passion of our hate.

The capacity to Biblically hate aids the ability to see through the smoke and mirrors that heresies in the church and falsity in the culture serve up. If we genuinely hate that which is evil this will translate into the ability to sniff it out and define it even when it is covered up in the Church and broader culture. Bovine bunkum smells like bovine bunkum no matter how it is doused with expensive perfume and hatred for the smell of bovine bunkum can give us the ability to identify bullshit in a sea of Estee Lauder.

Hatred of falsity will give us the ability to detect and resist it. A Biblical hate thus gives us spidey senses that tingle when what and who we love are threatened. Hatred is an important element in family love. When we love our family we will hate that or who threatens or attacks our family. Hate, as the corresponding proper reflection of love, has built Christian Western Civilization. Without a properly defined hate we would be a weak, vacillating, and forever defeated people. This, in part, explains why so many of the enemies of Biblical Christianity keep pushing such a false narrative of hate that men who have their wives raped and murdered can’t even find it within themselves to be publicly outraged with the beast criminals who are caught. This, in part, explains why men have lost the capacity to be exercised and disheveled when the character and honor of the Lord Christ is pilloried and castigated. Men have been repeatedly and forever told that hatred isn’t proper and because they have believed that the ability to defend with passion what we love has been forfeited.

Without a solid emboldening embrace of biblical hate we are twilight men, men without chests, mere half-lings. Without well know hatreds, if we have any identity at all it is the identity of the limpid and the wallflower. Show me a man who is not epistemologically self conscious in his hatreds and I will introduce to you a dishwater man.

It serves the interests of the elites of our cog culture to distract us from the ability to properly hate. If we can be formed into a people who, at best, “love everybody and everything,” or at worst, are blase about everybody and everything, the consequence is an easily controlled population. Cattle are best corralled when they are passionless.

The ironic thing in all this is that those who laud this pietistic false love while eschewing a biblical hatred end up not getting love in the least but instead a vitamin deleted and fatigued niceness that is full of paper thin sentimental feelings. This kind of required ubiquitous love for everything and anything means that we love the stranger and alien with the same regard as we love our own children. Thus we give our children the same status as orphans. This kind of required ubiquitous love for everything and anything means that we love the illegal immigrant the same way we love our fellow citizen. Love must admit of distinctions and degrees, that eventually move into hate or love can not be love.

The ancient Latin poet Decimus Magnus Ausonius (A.D. 310-395) wrote, “Truth is the mother of all hatred.” If we are passionate for the truth we will be full of rightly oriented hatreds.

More then all this we should have it as our own goal to be hated, or at the very least we should rejoice for being hated for all the right reasons. Our Lord Christ said,

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23

Is David Cameron Blind or Stupid in Not Being Able to See His Own Religion?

First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and yes, the so-called glamorous parts of it as well.

In doing so, let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values. We should expose their extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.

We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together.

We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.

We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together.

Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country – and we must now all come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride.

And as we do so, we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam;

David Cameron
Prime Minister — United Kingdom
Extremism Speech — July 2015

Not being up on everything all the time this “extremism speech” back in July slipped my attention. This piece is jaw dropping incredible in terms of what is left unsaid in the text. I just could leave this alone without commenting on the absurdity.

1.) Cameron keeps invoking English “liberal values” and how those liberal values should be trumpeted in order to overturn the worldview of the extremists. Cameron even evokes the idea of a shared creed. In point of fact what Cameron has done here is he has invoked Liberalism as a religion to overturn the religion of the extremists, for it is only religion that can produce values and creed. Cameron has told his listeners that the religion of English Liberalism, with its creed and values, is superior to the religion of the extremists. Indeed so superior is this religion of English liberalism that all other religions can only operate in England as long as those religions submit themselves to the religion of English liberalism with its values and creed.

But think about that for just a moment. Does one really own their own religion if their own religion has to submit to the creed and values of another religion?

2.) If “Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh …must now all come together and stand up for our values” and for the shared English Liberal creed then what is the difference between Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or the Sikh religions except a few rituals? You see what is going on here is that the religion of English Liberalism with its values and creed is redefining what it means to be Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Sikh. Are we to really believe that the values and creed of the Muslim faith, Hindu faith, Jewish faith, Christian faith and Sikh faith are so similar that they can perfectly align with the religious values and creed of English liberalism? If Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, all share a common creed and values with the religion of English Liberalism what is the need for these other faiths?

3.) Now, about those shared values. It is really the case that all these faith have a shared value of abortion which glorifies violence, that the English religion of Liberalism champions? Do all these religion have the shared value of equality for all those of different sexuality? Inasmuch as Cameron, as a adherent to the religion of English Liberalism, is seeking to make Islam accept these values in England in that much he is most certainly conspiring against Islam.

4.) Cameron, as an adherent to the religion of English Liberalism with its value and creed, insist that this religion of his allows for “freedom of speech.” If that is true then why has the Home Secretary of England, in contradiction of putative English religious values and creed, blocked the entry into England of Robert Spence, Pamela Geller, and Michael Savage because they want to speak out against Islam? Does English religious values and creed allow for the freedom of speech that speaks against the English religious values and creed?

5.) Apparently English religious values and creed makes for a theocracy which does not allow for any gods that do not agree with their values and creed and for the kind of violence they glorify.

6.) We see here that there is very little difference between the extremists and the liberal. They each desire that all other religions bow to their creed and values. They each desire to scrub England of its uniquely Christian past in favor of their own competing religions. The disagreement between the extremists that Cameron complains about and the English liberals is the difference between a Trotsky and a Stalin. The disagreement is on methodology and not on substance. Both the extremists and the English liberals favor their religion to be the reigning religion. The English liberals desire to subjugate people every bit as much as the extremists they complain of.

In the words of C. William Knot Yielding,

“The liberals envision a multicultural state in which everyone subscribes to liberal ideals. The Jihadists envision a utopian Moslem state in which everyone adheres to Islamic law. It is the mythical belief of the liberals that the Jihadists are not the real Moslems. In the liberals’ eyes of unreality the Jihadists are the bad Moslems who won’t settle down and enjoy the fruits of multicultural Liberaldom.”

Any Christianity that shares values and creed with either Cameron’s religious Liberalism or the Jihadists religious Islam is a Christian that fails to understand his or her own faith.

Examining Dr. McDurmon and American Vision on Immigration

There simply is no biblical reason to refuse legitimate refugees. The Bible is clear that national borders should be open to all peaceful and law abiding individuals. Further, when we properly understand the meaning of the Bible’s teachings on immigrants, we will understand that to loathe refugees is to loathe ourselves and our own nation.

Dr. Joel McDurmon
American Vision

1.) First we would note that Dr. McDurmon confuses the issue somewhat by conflating the categories of “refugee” and “immigrants.” A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country, while an immigrant is someone who chooses to resettle to another country. There is a third category of “asylee” that is part of the conversation. These distinctions are important in this kind of conversation for without them it makes it even more difficult to make progress in the conversation.

2.) Dr. McDurmon makes this assertion in the face of what many have styled as “civilizational Jihad.” The recent deceased Muammar Gaddafi, noted,

“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Consistent with Gaddafi’s observation, authors Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi in their book, “Modern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,” call Muslim immigration to the West a “modern day Trojan Horse.” They go on to note that,“Mohammed himself proclaimed that migration is jihad,” and provides a flourish with. “from the Islamic jurisprudence view the immigration of the Muslims to the West is to be regarded as the most important step on the ladder for achieving the establishment of an Islamic state in the West. This is the primary objective of Islamic Mission in the West.”

Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders again echoes the above sentiments by noting that, “gradual and incremental transformation of our societies and legal systems, or what is termed ‘Isalmisation’ of our democratic societies by the vast growing numbers of Muslim immigrants who are importing Islam into our Western way of life.”

Ann Corcoran in her book, “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” writes Hijara means migration and, according to Islam’s doctrine and its quietly acknowledged organizational strategies, the goal of migration, today is not peaceful assimilation to the political system and mores of the host country. Instead, the goal is jihad by non-violent means known as civilizational jihad or Islamization.

Would Dr. McDurmon have us believe that God would be pleased with embracing a immigration pattern, the soul intent of which is squashing what little remains of Biblical Christianity, by a Muslim immigration horde intended to be used as a hammer of submission to obliterate the Christian remnant in the West and all this to the end of the Humanist attempt to establish a New World Order?

3.) Next we would note that Dr. McDurmon is just wrong in this assertion above, as OT Scholar Dr. James Hoffmeier points out ,

“The very positive statements about the treatment of strangers in the Bible, some of which were already quoted, show compassion for the alien in ancient Israel. The defenders of illegal aliens point to these passages as the rationale for rewriting current laws. The problem is that they make a simplistic correlation between the ancient Israelite social law and the modern situation as if the Bible was addressing the same problem. Three important questions must be raised before one attempts to apply Israelite law to the modern situation: 1) Was there such a thing as territorial sovereignty in the second millennium B.C. when these laws originated; 2) Within that socio-legal setting, what was a “stranger” or “sojourner;” and 3) How does one obtain this status?”

The fact of the matter is that McDurmon has likewise rushed passed these distinctions just as he rushed by the distinctions between “refugee” and “immigrant.” McDurmon completely disregards the distinction between the differing words in the OT translated as differing times as “stranger,” “foreigner,” “alien,” and “sojourner.” This is a significant error and reveals a certain sloppiness on Dr. McDurmon’s part.

In point of fact, as Ehud Would has written, putting the strongest contradiction possible to Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote,

“In biblical law foreign races were permitted to enter the border only under patronage and direct legal oversight of a native. Whether ambassadors, contracted laborers, or slaves, they were forbade from owning land, ascending to any positions of political power, forbidden to marry members of the nation, and weren’t allowed to lend to natives at interest (though natives could do so toward them). Nor could aliens conscript natives to perpetual slavery, but natives could buy chattel slaves so long as they were of other peoples. And any of foreign breed who would not consent to these terms for entry of Israel’s border was regarded a hostile invader and subject to forcible expulsion as in the cases of the mass deportations under Ezra and Nehemiah.”

Dr. James Hoffmeier, unlike Dr. McDurmon in the opening quote, pays close attention to the different OT Hebrew words that are so significant in this discussion, and confirms much of Ehud Would’s observation immediately above,

“The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” (ger) and the foreigner (nekhar or zar) in biblical law is stark indeed. The ger in Israelite society, for instance, could receive social benefits such as the right to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) and they could receive resources from the tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). In legal matters, “there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16). In the area of employment, the ger and citizen were to be paid alike (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). In all these cases, no such provision is extended to the nekhar or zar. In a sense, the gerwere not just aliens to whom social and legal protections were offered, but were also considered converts, and thus could participate in the religious life of the community, e.g. celebrate Passover (Exodus 12:13) and observe Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29-30). They were, moreover, expected to keep dietary and holiness laws (Leviticus 17:8-9 & 10-12). It is well known that within Israelite society, money was not to be lent with interest, but one could loan at interest to a foreigner (nekhar). These passages from the Law make plain that aliens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner (nekhar) did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the ger as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today.”

4,) Another problem with Dr. McDurmon’s quote above is that Dr. McDurmon is calling for the State to have charity but as Dr. R. J. Rushdoony notes, “the state has no part in charity; the scripture never says that the state is to administer it. ” Rushdoony, in the same lecture, “Justice and World Law,” offers about this issue of immigration, “first of all they [illegal immigrants] have broken the law. And justice to everyone requires that the law be upheld. So if they are illegal aliens they should be deported. Now that’s justice because it’s comparable to breaking and entering into a man’s house.” From this quote we see that Dr. Rushdoony also disagrees with Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote.

In conclusion it is interesting that seemingly all of Institutional Christendom is insisting that civilizational Jihad must be embraced, and that the West must embrace its death by commandment of God. Whether it is the long acknowledged Left like the “Sojourners” organization or whether it is the Cultural Marxist Churches, or whether it is organizations like Lutheran World Relief or Catholic Relief Services or any number of other Denominational organizations what Christian laity are almost universally being told is that that if they don’t support the dissolution of themselves in their undoubted catholic Christian faith and as a people and they don’t love Jesus and are guilty of Racism. This call to accept civilizational jihad now even comes from those organizations that heretofore were considered “conservative” such as American Vision.

Christians need to be assured that they can oppose immigration and still be considered Christ honoring. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon the West today can happen in the context of obeying the 1st commandment, the 5th commandment, and the 8th commandment. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the admonition of the necessity to provide for one’s own household. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the same kind of love for our people that we find St. Paul expressing in Romans 9:3. In point of fact, I would insist that opposing the kind of immigration that is being foisted on the West today is the duty of every Christ loving Christian.

“

Theopolis Institute’s Terrible Article On Immigration

First, we should clarify that there is not the slightest shred of biblical justification for any government to legislate against the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one country to another. There should be no laws against immigration.

Rev. Steve Jeffery

Federal Visionist UK Pastor

Federal Visionist Theopolis Institute

Now think about this for just a second.

If the above were true why would it not similarly be true that there is not the slightest shred of biblical justification for any government to legislate against the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one family’s property to another family’s property? After all, all nations are are extended families.

Unrestricted immigration is a violation of the 8th commandment since the kind of movement required in untrammeled immigration means the disregarding of the ownership of property. The fact that the State claims ownership of all property is the only thing that keeps untrammeled immigration from being clearly seen as theft. Because we think that, since the State owns everything ,the State, as owner of everything, has the place to open up borders in order to give to the alien and stranger what belongs to the home born. In order for Rev. Jeffrey to make this claim he must first assume the State is owner of everything and so can make laws that allow the placement of the alien and stranger above the home born.

Remember that Rev. Jeffery said above that there is not the slightest shred of biblical justification for any government to legislate against the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one country to another. I have already given more than a shred by invoking the 8th commandment.

Another fact that shreds Rev. Jeffery’s “not a shred” argument is the 6th commandment which requires us to not only “not murder,” but also that,

“I am not to dishonour, hate, injure, or kill my neighbour by thoughts, words, or gestures, and much less by deeds, whether personally or through another … ”

And yet the kind of immigration that Rev. Jeffrey is calling for is a case of dishonoring, hating and injuring our own family and neighbors by supporting a policy that will create a permanent economic underclass. The kind of policy that Rev. Jeffrey is calling for will result in eliminating the middle class while creating a have vs. have not social order. The support for this statement can be found in Harvard Economist George Borjas analysis in this article,

http://cis.org/node/4573

Rev. Jeffrey and the Theopolis institute are confusing sojourning with integration. Biblical sojourning was segregated. This handy chart reveals that there were different categories for non resident and that the non resident remained distinct from the resident member of the Nation.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/stranger-and-sojourner-in-the-old-testament.html

These Old Testament distinctions are completely disregarded by Rev. Jeffrey and the Theopolis Institute. This is a ham-handed handling of Scripture on the part of Rev. Jeffrey and the Theopolis Institute and makes for a distinct misrepresentation of truth and reality.

This whole line of thinking would be news to Moses who asked permission for Israel to merely pass through Edom. And when permission was denied, he offered to pay a toll. After that was denied, Israel went round Edom. Moses never insinuated that Israel had a right to pass through on the grounds that “the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one country to another” may not be impeded.

This is Libertarian make believe without a shred of justification from Scripture.

A Christian take on non-Christian views masquerading as Christian views on Kim Davis

The following is a response to this,

That Public Square Thing

1.) I don’t buy the “pluralism” argument as enjoined against Kim Davis. This idea insists that, since we are not a Christian nation, therefore Christians must tolerate and live with pagan practices, such as sodomite marriage, of heathen practitioners. Those who argue for this tolerance for pluralism seem always fail to realize that toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance. Secondly, as it pertains to pluralism what most people don’t seem to recognize is that pluralism always hides a monotheistic non-pluralistic order where the God is the State policing how far the other gods in the pluralistic order can walk in the public square. Since, it is impossible for the God-State to exist without being animated by some belief system that belief system, which always animates every Government in existence, mocks the whole nonsense of “separation of Church and State,” as that phrase is currently used and understood. More on “separation of church and state later.”

2.) Some have argued that because Kim Davis issues marriage licenses to those who, in a manner inconsistent with the Scripture, are marrying again, after being un-biblically divorced, therefore Kim Davis is being inconsistent by refusing to issue marriage licenses to sodomites and lesbians who, like their heterosexual counter-parts, are also marrying un-biblically. This argument seems to posit that since some of God’s standards for marriage have been abandoned therefore all of God’s standards for marriage must be abandoned. This is like arguing that since we let a filthy and unclean dog in the house therefore we are inconsistent if we don’t let that filthy and unclean dog eat from the table or sleep in our bed. What will follow from this type of reasoning? Will we now argue that since County Clerks issue marriage licenses to sodomites they therefore must give marriage licenses to necrophiliacs and to Farmer Clyde and his prize milk cow Bessie?

Do you see why the wise are telling you that Obergefell vs. Hodges is the end of marriage having any stable meaning?

3.) Many ministers and others who are championing ignorant opinions on the Kim Davis case have no understanding regarding our law and the way it works. First, on this score, no law condoning sodomite marriage currently exists. Constitutionally speaking only Congress can make law. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution states, “All legislative power herein granted is vested in a Congress….” Please understand that ‘All’ means all. Congress has passed no law allowing for sodomite marriage. No law like that exists. SCOTUS, constitutionally speaking, can not legally make law. SCOTUS only interprets law. Can anyone take me to the law or point to the law that says that sodomites can marry? They can’t because no such law exists.

Second, on this score, even if the US Congress had passed a law saying that “sodomites can marry” such a law would be null and void before the ink was put to the page and county clerks would be under no obligation to follow such an illegal legality. The Federal Government is restricted, by the US Constitution (our covenant document) to only the enumerated and delegated powers outlined by the US Constitution. Guess what folks? Granting sodomites the legal right to marry is not one of the Federal Governments “delegated or enumerated powers.” I’ve read the US Constitution. Such a enumerated and delegated power is just not there.

Third, the 9th and 10th amendment make the above paragraph abundantly clear. Law on matters not enumerated or delegated to the Feds are reserved to the States or the people.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, the Feds can certainly interpret this language any way they damn please but all because the Feds say the US Constitution gives them the authority to judicially or legislatively force sodomite marriage down our collective throats doesn’t mean that the US Constitution agrees with the Feds. Repeat after me slowly … “The Feds have zero Constitutional authority that allows them to force upon the States sodomite marriage.”

So, that being said we pause to ask, ‘How can the federal courts enforce a law that Congress, Constitutionally speaking, cannot even make”?

Fourth, on this score,since the Feds can point to no law passed by any legitimate Congress, wherein it is required that the States embrace sodomite marriage, Kim Davis is exactly correct in following the only law that speaks to the matter — Kentucky law. Kentucky law is the only law that currently exists on this subject and Kentucky law does not allow for sodomite marriage. It is everyone else besides Davis who are not following the Law. Let them sit and rot in jail.

4.) Some have argued that Kim Davis should do the “honorable thing and resign.” These folks fail to realize that Kim Davis is acting as a Public person. She does not have the luxury of resigning if she is take her public vows seriously. She, in her public capacity, is protecting her constituents from violating the current law of the land of Kentucky. In point of fact, a resignation would be the dishonorable thing for her to do.

5.) A brief word again on the “separation of Church and State.”

a.) The ability to completely divorce Church and State is a impossibility. All States reflect and are animated by some God or god concept as taught by some church somewhere. As the State has to do with creating and enforcing a societal law order. all states are expressly religious as all law is nothing but religion externalized into the social order.

b.) there is indeed a jurisdictional distinction between Church and State that absolutely must be abided by. The State, jurisdictionally speaking, is the realm of justice. The Church, jurisdictionally speaking, for the Christian, is the realm of grace offered and / or conferred in Word and Sacrament. The distinction exists. However, a jurisdictional distinction is far different than the idea of a “separation” as that is currently invoked.

c.) The phrase “separation of Church and State” is not part of our founding documents. The usage of it arose in a private letter of President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist convention in 1802. Jefferson’s phrase, “separation of Church and State” was not invoked as part of our political landscape until invoked in a SCOTUS “Everson vs. Board of Education” in 1947. The invocation of this unfortunate and misunderstood phrase has been lamented by legal scholars. In 1962, Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, complained that jurisprudence was not “aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, likewise found the phrase “separation of church and state” lamentable, In addressing the issue in 1985, Rhenquist noted “unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”

d.) Until Everson the Establishment clause, which was originally intended to be applied only fully to the Federal Government (i.e. — The Federal Government could not create a religious establishment for all the states) was now fully applied to all the states so that the Federal government would insure that the States also had a wall of separation between church and state. (The famous doctrine of incorporation.)

Separation of church and state is a myth, created by a progressive court for the purpose of setting the influence of Christianity aside in favor of more enlightened views. The Founders never envisioned a State that was separated from religious influence. Their intent was to insure that the Feds didn’t influence the States in the states having established religions.

6.) And even if 1-5 were inaccurate (and they’re not) “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

The point here is that those who tell you that Kim Davis is in violation of the law just don’t know what they are talking about. A second point here is that Christian ministers, who speak of the need for pluralism, are in point of fact saying that Christian ministers must champion polytheism for the public square. Pluralism is just not possible without polytheism. Don’t you think it passing strange that a Christian minister would tell you that God is pleased with Christians insisting that God is pleased by requiring room for false gods in the public square?