Observations of the American Republic

American Voice 1

Posts Tagged ‘America

Remember the Reason for Our Independence

leave a comment »

The Declaration of Independence

July 4, 1776

Introduction

The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the American political tradition. It articulates the fundamental ideas that form the American nation: All men are created free and equal and possess the same inherent, natural rights. Legitimate governments must therefore be based on the consent of the governed and must exist “to secure these rights.”

As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence announced to the world the unanimous decision of the thirteen American colonies to separate themselves from Great Britain. But its true revolutionary significance—then as well as now—is the declaration of a new basis of political legitimacy in the sovereignty of the people. The Americans’ final appeal was not to any man-made decree or evolving spirit but to rights inherently possessed by all men. These rights are found in eternal “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” As such, the Declaration’s meaning transcends the particulars of time and circumstances.

The circumstances of the Declaration’s writing make us appreciate its exceptionalist claims even more. The war against Britain had been raging for more than two years when the Continental Congress, following a resolution of Richard Henry Lee on June 7, 1776, appointed a committee to explore the independence of the colonies from Great Britain. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston turned to their colleague Thomas Jefferson to draft a formal declaration which they then submitted, with few corrections, to Congress. On July 2 Congress voted for independence and proceeded to debate the wording of the Declaration, which was, with the notable deletion of Jefferson’s vehement condemnation of slavery, unanimously approved on the evening of July 4. Every Fourth of July, America celebrates not the actual act of independence (proclaimed on July 2) but rather the public proclamation of the principles behind the act.

The Declaration has three parts—the famous Preamble, a list of charges against King George III, and a conclusion. The Preamble summarizes the fundamental principles of American self-government. The list of charges against the king presents examples of the violation of those principles. The stirring conclusion calls for duty, action, and sacrifice.

______

Preamble (and first paragraph). Although a document justifying revolutionary war, the Declaration argues throughout on the basis of universal reason by paying “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and appealing to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Self-Evident Truths. The Declaration bases America and its government on self-evident truths such as human equality and certain “unalienable rights.” The truths are self-evident, not in the sense of being immediately obvious to everyone, but rather in presenting the logical or evident conclusion of what enlightened humanity understands by a human being. Self-evident truths are also not restricted to any one era or nation; they are as true today as they were in 1776, as true in America as they are in contemporary China or in ancient Greece. To enforce those rights is the challenge of American politics.

Rights. Such rights are acknowledged and affirmed liberties inherent in human nature—the right to own property, for example. They are not merely powers, and neither are they simply wishes or desires. “[E]ndowed by their Creator,” these rights transcend the ability of any government to destroy them (though killing or enslaving the men and women who possess these rights is, of course, another matter). Thus, these inherent or natural rights produce legitimate government and deny the legitimacy of any government justified merely on, for example, heredity, religion, class, race, or wealth.

Equality. So conceived, American government is fundamentally about rights or liberty. But these rights follow from the equality of all men. This precedence of equality obviously does not mean an equality of strength, character, batting averages, or writing skill; nor does it demand a communistic equality of results or condition. In fact the Declaration’s idea of equality would forbid such an arbitrary leveling of the naturally diverse human condition. Whatever our differences, there exists a fundamental human identity—that no one is born to rule or be ruled. Equality in this sense therefore requires that legitimate government be based on “the consent of the governed.”

The Pursuit of Happiness. The purpose of such a legitimate government in turn is to protect “certain unalienable rights,” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Rights culminate in the pursuit (that is, the vocation, not the chase) of happiness. And happiness is not about self-satisfaction or stupefied pleasure but rather a life lived to its full potential—human flourishing.

The Right of Revolution. Politically, the most important right is the right of self-government, which the whole Declaration elaborates upon, in theory and practice. Violation of government by consent calls forth the right, if not the duty, of “the people” (not any angry individual or mob) to “alter or to abolish” a government destructive of rights and to “institute new government” that will bring about “their safety and happiness.” Throughout the Declaration we see attention to both life’s necessities (“safety” or the right to life) and highest aspirations (“happiness”).

Indictment. The 27 charges against the king list in increasing severity his violations of American colonists’ civil, political, and natural rights. The Declaration lays out a “long train of abuses” culminating in “absolute tyranny.” Legitimate revolutions—those that protect the natural rights of the people—require more than “light and transient causes.” The king has interfered with our rights not only to our pursuit of happiness but also to liberty and to life itself.

Conclusion. The king is a tyrant, “unfit to be the ruler of a free people,” deaf to the pleas of justice and humanity. The Congress is forced to proclaim the colonies free and independent states, and the delegates pledge to each other their “Lives, … Fortunes and … sacred Honor.”

______

Almost fifty years later, Jefferson described the Declaration as “an expression of the American mind…. All its authority rests … on the harmonizing sentiments of the day….” The Declaration weaves together philosophy, theology, and political history, both the American mind and American experience. A secular document, the Declaration nonetheless needs religion for its authority. Thus, God is mentioned or referred to four times, in three capacities: legislator (Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God), Creator (or executive), Supreme Judge of the world, and as guardian (divine Providence).

The first of the four organic laws of the United States, the Declaration may lack legal force but remains nonetheless the source of all legitimate political authority. No wonder the Declaration’s greatest expositor, Abraham Lincoln, referred to it as more than “a merely revolutionary document.” For the first time a nation constituted itself on what it has in common with all other people throughout geographic place and history and thus gave hope and inspiration to the whole world. The Declaration created America and with it a “new order of the ages” (novus ordo seclorum) in the history of human self-government.

The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops
among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

WE, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President]

New Hampshire
JOSIAH BARTLETT,
WM. WHIPPLE,
MATTHEW THORNTON.

Massachusetts Bay
SAML. ADAMS,
JOHN ADAMS,
ROBT. TREAT PAINE,
ELBRIDGE GERRY

Rhode Island
STEP. HOPKINS,
WILLIAM ELLERY.

Connecticut
ROGER SHERMAN,
SAM’EL HUNTINGTON,
WM. WILLIAMS,
OLIVER WOLCOTT.

New York
WM. FLOYD,
PHIL. LIVINGSTON,
FRANS. LEWIS,
LEWIS MORRIS.

New Jersey
RICHD. STOCKTON,
JNO. WITHERSPOON,
FRAS. HOPKINSON,
JOHN HART,
ABRA. CLARK.

Pennsylvania
ROBT. MORRIS
BENJAMIN RUSH,
BENJA. FRANKLIN,
JOHN MORTON,
GEO. CLYMER,
JAS. SMITH,
GEO. TAYLOR,
JAMES WILSON,
GEO. ROSS.

Delaware
CAESAR RODNEY,
GEO. READ,
THO. M’KEAN.

Maryland
SAMUEL CHASE,
WM. PACA,
THOS. STONE,
CHARLES CARROLL
of Carrollton.

Virginia
GEORGE WYTHE,
RICHARD HENRY LEE,
TH. JEFFERSON,
BENJA. HARRISON,
THS. NELSON, JR.,
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE,
CARTER BRAXTON.

North Carolina
WM. HOOPER,
JOSEPH HEWES,
JOHN PENN.

South Carolina
EDWARD RUTLEDGE,
THOS. HAYWARD, JUNR.,
THOMAS LYNCH, JUNR.,
ARTHUR MIDDLETON.

Georgia
BUTTON GWINNETT,
LYMAN HALL,
GEO. WALTON.

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-declaration-of-independence

Advertisements

Written by americanvoice1

July 4, 2015 at 10:35 AM

Unrecognized Origin

leave a comment »

Being an American is a blessing that people do not realize. Since writing the post “It is a matter of Principal” it has become clear over the years that people have not been educated on the principals that make America an exceptional nation. As Americans could it be that we have forgotten the foundational principals that made our nation, America, exceptional. In June of 2006 then Senator Obama was critical of a Christian America, and yet people elected him to the Office of the President of the United States twice with what may come to be known as a lack luster administration at best. It is odd that in America today many people are more concerned about themselves rather than being concerned about America remaining exceptional. It has become common place for people to turn away from God and Jesus Christ… it has become popular to be politically correct rather than to take a stand on moral principal. God’s Law is the Law of Nature and God is Natures God.

Benjamin Franklin had his doubts when he wrote to stiles but his thoughts should be taken to heart:

“Here is my Creed I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this … As for Jesus of Nazareth … I think the system of Morals and Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw … but I have … some Doubts to his Divinity; though’ it is a Question I do not dogmatism upon, having never studied it, and think it is needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”

Franklin’s question having never studied; is one all who question God and Jesus Christ should study alas this is a matter for each person to address for themselves. Disrespect for people is never a good thing. That which a person believes is a personal matter that said; changing the established principals of a moral society to those of the amoral who live in the society is detrimental to the society as a whole.

Many people have stated that Thomas Jefferson was not a believer in Christ, only God knows for sure; to state it as a fact would be less than genuine. Jefferson was raised an Anglican who became influenced by English Deism. Classic English Deism contains five articles they are:

1.Belief in the existence of a single supreme God

2. Humanity’s duty to revere God

3. Linkage of worship with practical morality

4. God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins

5. Good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death.

Jefferson who was influenced by people such as Bolingbroke with a French influence and Shaftsbury who opposed Locke were English Deist. Bolingbroke was quite clear on where he stood. “Despising all religions as the product of enthusiasm, fraud, and superstition, he nevertheless concedes to real Christianity the possession of moral and rational truth; an advocate of freedom of thought, he supports an established church in the interest of the State and of public morals”. Shaftsbury was a self-perfectionist believing in an autonomous moral code.

As for revealed law from the pulpit, when observing the condition of our society in America today, apparently there is not enough of it. Not all Christian, our Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion.

The principal is evident no matter what person’s personal belief The God of the Holy Bible is evident in the founding principals of America.

Blessings,

AV1

Written by americanvoice1

October 11, 2014 at 7:04 PM

A Conversation with Mr. Salaam…

with 6 comments

This is a post in reply to Robert Salaam who’s post was read last week and against whom there are no negitive feelings. The reason for the post is the conversation was cut short by Mr. Salaam and the answer to his reply provides information this writer considers nessacary to the conversation.   

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

With respect who do you think the Creator is… The Creator is GOD. Currently people in America do have life, liberty and the persuit of happiness… so what is the problem.

Contrary to what you may think Scripture plays a large roll in our nation:

In 1892 the US Supreme Court made this ruling in a case. (Church of The Holy Trinity vs. The United States.) “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation.”

It is true God considers homosexuality as an abomination. So what is wrong with a Scriptural point of view. declaring what is wrong to be correct is a sign of the comming of the end of time.

Blessings,
AV1

2009 May 27

Robert Salaam

Peace and Blessings AV1,

Should I therefore infer from your referencing of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), that you support the idea that as this is a “Christian Nation” legislation that is passed can be enforced or revoked based on the conformance to the Christian religion? Are you suggesting that the laws of the United States should be interpreted based within the Christian religious theological concepts? If so, then which Christian theology, Church, or Sect should we interpret from or use as a guide? The Mormon Church, The Catholic Church, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.

This is the problem with such legal inferences in which Justices of centuries past sought to interpret based on assumptions that are not clearly outlined in the Constitution. Not only does it give the Christian Right ammunition, but it also points out the mass hypocrisy of those who promote such interpretations of US Laws. If the founders wanted this nation to be a pseudo or defacto Christian theocracy, why did they go through the pains they did to ensure freedom of religion and separation of Church and State? Why even mention it? Why not pick a Church call it the Church of America and legislate around that specific cannon?

This specific legal opinion by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with whether or not this is a Christian nation, nor did it have anything to do with setting precedent on how we should interpret or pass laws. It was of the opinion of the Court of that era, that this is a Christian nation and as such should in essence ignore the immigration laws for Christian clergy who do business with Churches in America.

Even if this court got it right and those who support this legal opinion are right, you still have the problem of explaining the extent of the Churches influence on our laws and letting us know exactly what Church law we are supposed to hold as the supreme model.

Furthermore, you also embolden my case that to support this type of thinking only emboldens the hypocrisy of some Christians and sets a dangerous precedent that if allowed means that laws could be passed to deny the rights of any citizen who doesn’t adhere to “Christian” law or legal theory. Entire sects, religions, and ideologies could be banned because they don’t adhere to the standards of a “Christian Nation” and if this is a “Christian Nation” as you suggest, I once again ask what Bible are we reading?

To your commentary: “With respect who do you think the Creator is… The Creator is GOD. Currently people in America do have life, liberty and the persuit of happiness… so what is the problem.”

You completely misunderstood my commentary apparently. It doesn’t matter what you or I feel about God, religion, theology, etc. Our beliefs should not be legislated against and or over others beliefs. If that were allowed, we would have to redefine our Constitution and decide which religion has precedence. The entire end times rant, is a belief I do not hold, it’s typical of the sky is falling types. To me, it’s arrogant to attempt to know the mind of God as He has not informed man of when the world would end. My beliefs, which according to you can be legislated against, state that our focus should be on our lives now and leave the future to God’s Will Alone. If it were God’s Will that the world should end now, I would have to believe that the reason would not be from Gay marriage but could have something to do with the general state of this so-called Christian Nation. If one was to look at the 10 Commandments and then look at our “Christian Nation” one would not only see that we daily transgress these laws and do nothing about them, but that nowhere is it stated that thou shall not be gay and get married. I happen to think that God would punish us more for our treatment of the least of the people, you know the brethren of Jesus (as) than He would for our allowing Gay couples to have civil rights.

But heh, if a child dies tonight in America of starvation, that’s less important and less worthy of protest, than if a gay couple can file jointly on a tax return!

Robert,

A simple answer to your question is yes… America is a Christian nation. No America is not like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran or China; the point is Christian principals are the foundational blocks that formed our nation. Please read the article “Is Obama Correct: Is America No Longer A Christian Nation”. As an American Citizen who spent twenty years protecting and defending our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic there is a grave concern regarding the current path of our nation. The foundation of a Christian is not the denomination a person belongs to; the foundation is a personal relationship daily relationship with the Lord God and accepting Him as your Lord and savior. The “guide” America’s success is God’s word the Holy Bible

 Please explain assumption… how does one assume that which is written down for that is of course unless one has their own agenda. Freedom of speech is always an issue with many people. The “Bill of Rights” is clear it is the “Progressives” and those who are like them who have a problem with comprehension. “abridging the freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech is the right of a person to verbalize their point of view without condensing, diminishing, depriving or shortening the duration of their comment. There is no provision in this amendment of our Constitution that allows a person to speak in an uncivil manner. People have a right to voice their opinion; clearly, there is not allowance for slander or foul and disrespectful language towards another person.  Concerning the separation of church and state in 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter replying to the Danbury Baptist. In the letter he stated

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” 

 Jefferson was concerned regarding a wall of separation between Man and God were people not provided the free exercise of their religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to do with the removal of God or the Holy Bible from the public square. With respect, it is not about a specific Cannon, Theology, Denomination, or any other labels one would choose to use. The Supreme Court referencing  Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) stated “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation.”. Please consider the following:

 “the original intent of our Founding Fathers was clear. This is and always should be a Christian nation because true Christian principles protect everyone’s rights, especially the right to disagree.

 In 1789, the United States Congress voted this resolution: “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” This was an accepted practice in schools at the time of our revolution.

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies, is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

 From the article, “U.S. District Court judge chooses to leave God out of the Pledge of Allegiance”

 When all is said and done, in this world there is only one thing that will truly matter; And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3 (KJV)  The Holy Bible was as true foundation in 1636 as it was in 1789, 1802, 1892, the foundational cornerstone. The Courts did get it right America is a Christian Nation. You ask about which church law to follow… the answer is it is not about Church law, the model is God’s law.

With respect your case is not emboldened by this writers comment as the intent is not hypocrisy as this writer believes in the God of Scripture, the Trinity, and that accepting Jesus as ones personal savior is the only way to the Father. The point is Christian principals are America’s foundation our Constitution clearly states, “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”.  This writer has never implied or suggested the denial of a person’s faith or religion. However, we must not forget a civil society must maintain morals, standards and values. Please explain the problem with having established morals, standards and values in society. The model is God’s law from the Holy Bible.

How can you say, “It doesn’t matter what you or I feel about God, religion, theology, etc.  Our beliefs should not be legislated against and or over others beliefs.  If that were allowed, we would have to redefine our Constitution and decide which religion has precedence”? Once again, with respect it does matter. Additionally you say in your post, “I think it’s a miscarriage of Justice that the California Supreme Court upheld the ruling barring same-sex marriage outlined under the notorious Prop 8 legislation.” To that, I ask this question why you would promote a lifestyle that God considers an abomination.

Robert, you are the one who is missing the point… Judeo-Christian and democratic principals are the foundation and the Cornerstone America.  Any civil society or nation must have morals values and standards for the citizens of the society to follow. Each society and nation is as unique as God Chose to make it. There is only one Creator and that Creator is the Lord God.  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE understand it is not about religion… God wants a personal relationship with each of us. A personal relationship with the Lord God, the right to worship God or not worship God is the foundational principal of America.

Contraire, the end times are coming it is not a rant to be clear you are correct. Even Jesus Christ the Son of God does not know the time of his return. The intended meaning of the comment was that scripture explains that we are to recognize the wretchedness of those who would call that that is evil good and good evil, and we are to recognize God and His Gospel and His wrath.  At no time was there a mention of legislating against a person’s faith that is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides you the right to follow God as one chooses or not. God’s will is the same as it was yesterday, today, and it will be tomorrow. The time frame is His alone … Homosexual Marriage is an abomination in the Christian Faith and am sure homosexuality is not acceptable in the Muslim Faith. You speak of the Ten Commandments; you are correct there has been much transgression. The Commandments provided by God established acceptable standards for the Hebrew nation to follow. The reality check here is to break one Commandment is to break them all we are all sinners, you see it is not “the”, or “which”, sin but sin itself that God does not allow in His presence. A person cannot work their way to Salvation; it is by God’s Grace that we are saved through Faith and not of one’s self but Salvation is a gift of God.     

Transgression for man is daily because we are born of a sinful nature God knows this that is why He sent Jesus that all would not perish. To be sure, each of us will be accountable for our actions; the choice is a personal one to choose Jesus… or to have eternal separation from God in ones future. Homosexuality, people going hungry, not following God as we should these and many more are all transgressions and show the sinful nature of man. No, it is not right that in a nation as powerful as America that a child should go hungry. You would have to ask our President why it is more important to bail out corporations than to feed hungry children. In the process ask the President when it was decided that Civil Rights laws became paramount to the laws of God.   

 Blessings,

AV1

Mr. Salaam’s entire post in regard to Proposition eight  is available HERE

Say What… Minority Report in America

leave a comment »

Odd how life is quiclky becomming stranger than fiction. In the Fox News report “Sotomayor’s Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash” the following information is provided:

“Earlier this year, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states. A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” 

Wrong , Wrong , Wrong 

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Recommended reading for Justice Sotomayor can be found at the United States Government Archives . As a point of intrest the Bill of Rights to our nations Constitution has been around since 4 March 1789.

United We Stand and Divided We Fall The Choice Is Ours To Make

Belssings,

AV1

Concerns about Sonia Sotomayor

leave a comment »

Has it occoured to any one that Judge Sotomayor is not the best pick for our Republic.

 

 

 

 

 

Just for the record this writer is with Hanity on this one…  United We Stand and Divided We Fall.

Blessing,

AV1

Obama Team Throws Panthers a Pass

leave a comment »

As an American  the article on fox news is of concern.

 

 

What do you think?

Blessings,

AV1

No Wonder the Republicans ar Having a Problem

with one comment

And people wonder why the Republican party has a problem. please read the article  posted on IRN NEWS  below:

A bill before the congress could give the Justice Department the power to suspend the second amendment for those suspected of being a threat to the government
By: John Russell | Source: IRN/USA News
May 18, 2009 6:16PM EST


 

 

A bill introduced by New York Republican  representative Peter King would allow the Obama justice department to deny gun rights to anyone deemed a threat or potential threat to the government. The so-called Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorist of 2009 is so vaguely worded that it could be used to deny Second Amendment protections to virtually anyone named by the Justice Department as a potential terrorist. Furthermore it includes no way to challenge such a determination.

Before one can be aginst it we must return to it.  What do you think?  United we stand and divided we fall

Blessngs,

AV1

Written by americanvoice1

May 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM