Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

 

e could argue that the contemporary assault on Christianity began with a little-noticed brochure from the American Bar Association [ABA to its members] in May, 1989, advertising a seminar for "...[a]ttorneys who want to be on the leading edge of an explosive new area of law"—suing churches, Christian leaders and Christian activists. The seminar was entitled: "Expanding Use of Tort Law Against Religions." While this would trigger a new phase of attacks on Christianity, in reality, the assault on the Christian Church was launched shortly after the end of World War II with the birth of the United Nations and the reemergence of the globalist movement that lay dormant for two decades. The effort to create world government failed when our 28th president, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, was unable to convince Congress to join the League of Nations and surrender America's sovereignty to a world government headquartered in Brussels. In 1989 the Utopians realized they were running out of time. The attack against Christians and the outlawing of Christianity as a racist religion was behind schedule. The globalists were running out of time. While the Utopians still don't get it, the clock that is ticking down isn't their clock, it's God's. And His timeline is right on schedule.

The utopians who were attempting to create one-world government at the end of World War I were slow to grasp the reality that the nationalistic fervor that fuels patriotism is rooted in faith—Christian faith. It became very clear to the globalists between the two world wars that, before American sovereignty could be breached the utopians— aided by corrupt political hacks, judges, and bureaucrats—would have to erase Christianity from the hearts, minds and souls of the American people before the United States could be re-shackled to the Old World Order. The utopians would attack the underpinnings of the 1st Amendment. They knew if they could erode the right of free men to speak on the issues that affected their lives, or prevent those free men from expressing their religious beliefs, they would no longer be free and the globalists who were steering the American ship of state towards the shoals of Utopia would win.

Because the American people struggled so hard against impossible odds to gain their freedom from the overlords of Europe, the Founding Fathers of the United States understood that more than anything it was the patriotic pride of the colonial soldier that buoyed him through a war America should have lost. And it was patriotism that made the United States the greatest nation in the history of the world. If they missed it in 1920, the overlords of Utopia got it in 1946. That year the attitude of the federal courts changed. The restriction placed in the 1st Amendment by the Founding Fathers against their newly formed government—"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."—would be shifted by activist federal judges away from the government and used against the people whose right to worship without restrictions could not be constitutionally abridged by the government or the courts.

In order to begin erasing the generational isolationism that had permeated America since WWI, President Harry S. Truman introduced a UN public school curriculum created by UNESCO into the American school system on April 6, 1946. The curriculum, "Towards World Understanding" was designed to prepare America's next generations for "world citizenship." The following year UNESCO's Director General, Sir Julian Huxley, issued a scholastic directive entitled "Classrooms With Children Under 12-years of Age" which blamed the parents of school children for harming their offspring by instilling in them a sense of Christian faith and patriotic pride. Huxley said that "...[b]efore the child enters school his mind has already been profoundly marked, and often injuriously, by earlier influences...first gained...in the home." Later in the text—which was used in hundreds of classrooms throughout the nation—Huxley observed that "...it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes." Among those things that "infect" the family, Huxley reiterated again, were religion and patriotism.

Huxley's utopian UN programs were incorporated in the public school system of the United States and eventually became the foundational framework for preschool—getting the children away from their parents before they are unduly influenced by homegrown parental prejudices—God and country. Today, a half-century later, the American family has come to believe that preschool is good for their children and that it's also good for them. They believe that by getting their kids into school earlier, the children learn faster, and learn more. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As was proven by Dr. James Dobson three decades ago, children not only learn faster, but they retained much more of what they learn if they are held out of school until age seven. The government, through its Congressional incorporation—the National Education Association—is merely exercising the Huxley Principle by encouraging parents to place their children in preschool classes and even curriculurized daycare. Get the children away from their parents and surrender them to the "Village" as soon as possible. No God. No country. No homegrown prejudices to interfere with the New World Order brainwashing. One government. One economy. One religion—the State. Huxley's anti-Christian principles, carefully woven into the public school curriculum through UNESCO launched a generational attack on Christianity not only in the United States, but around the world.

From 1946 until 1965 the battle was waged almost entirely from within the citadels of public education as the American Civil Liberties Union was drafted by the utopians in the American Bar Association to carry the separation of church and state banner in the battle against God in the courtrooms. In 1946, after the State of New Jersey enacted legislation that provided the venue for parochial school children to ride to their Catholic schools on public school buses, a Ewing Township taxpayer, Arch R. Everson sued—based on two previous Supreme Court decisions, Reynolds v. United States [1878] and Pierce v. Society Sisters [1925]—and argued that the school board was supporting a religion. The case was argued before US Supreme Court on Nov. 20, 1946. The decision in Everson v Board of Education came down on Dec. 2, 1947. The school board won. The American people lost. In Everson, the high court did two things. First the activist New Deal court legislated from the bench by coupling the 1st and 14th Amendments. In doing so, the justices were able to apply the prohibitions that the Founding Fathers applied only against the federal government against the States. Second, it more clearly defined what Reynolds v United States [98 USC 145] viewed as a wall of separation between church and state, creating by definition what has since become known as "the establishment clause."

It's important to stop and examine the inherent ideology of the court that declared war on religion in America. It was a mirror reflection of the very first Supreme Court—philosophically opposite of the views of the high court justices picked by George Washington. The first US Supreme Court contained five justices: John Jay, John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert Harrison, James Wilson and John Blair. While all of them were Federalists, each understood that the Constitution not only prevented any legislative body in the land from restricting the right of the people to worship, it also prevented any court in the land—the Supreme Court as well—from restricting or abridging that right.

The 1st Amendment was a safeguard designed specifically to prevent the federal government from creating a state-sponsored religion, or from interfering with the rights of the people to worship God as they saw fit when, where, and how, they wanted. The New Deal Court that heard Everson was appointed almost exclusively by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its justices were largely social activists who had signed on to the Roosevelt agenda. And topping FDR's agenda was converting the League of Nations into the United Nations—and creating world government. Roosevelt, like most of the world's leaders, believed that establishing world government was the only way to prevent war. Believing the adult generations of the world had too many homegrown prejudices to live war-free, the UN concentrated on indoctrinating the children of the world—the next generation of adults—to live together in peace. The agent of change would be UNESCO.

The New Deal Court contained seven justices picked by FDR: Wiley Rutledge, Frank Murphy, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Stanley Reed and William O. Douglas. Each of these justices were appointed specifically because they were utopian liberals who very specifically and very privately agreed to protect FDR's unconstitutional New Deal laws. The remaining two members of the New Deal Court were appointed by Harry S. Truman who, as vice president, ascended to the presidency upon the death of FDR in April, 1945. They were Fred Vinson, appointed as Chief Justice, and Harold Burton. Washington and FDR were the only two presidents who appointed majority opinion courts which virtually rubber-stamped their agendas by guaranteeing they would be upheld if challenged in the federal courts.

The liberal establishment has unilaterally controlled the philosophical slant of the US Supreme Court since 1937. Today there are three conservatives on the high court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. There are four liberals: John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. The swing voters are the two moderates: retiring Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. If O'Connor is successfully replaced by Samuel Alito, there will be four conservatives and four liberals with one swing vote—making Kennedy the most important vote on the court. If John Paul Stevens died or stepped down before Bush leaves office, and he is able to appoint a conservative to replace him, it would be the first time since the 1936 Hughes Court that conservatives controlled the Supreme Court.

As long as the liberals control the Supreme Court, the attack against Christianity will continue in the United States. If a major philosophical change on the high court does not happen soon, religious liberty will be legislatively abolished and Christianity will be branded as an exclusive, rather than inclusive, racist religion, justifying the "Village" in erasing it from the American society. It was because of the deliberate politicizing of the high court that the virulent attack on Christianity was allowed to happen, and why it is tolerated by the judiciary. For that reason, it is critical that conservatives do not desert the Republican Party in 2008. If they do, and a third party candidate strong enough to pull 5% of the Christian vote away from the GOP enters the race, the Democratic candidateeven if that candidate is Hillary Clintonwill be elected the 44th President of the United States with about 43% of the vote. If that happens, the Senate will likely fall back into the hands of the Democrats, and Christianity in America will be doomed. The liberal judiciary in the United States will completely erase the tenets of Christianity from the land by successsfully branding it a racist religion, and allowing civil rights groups to sue it out of existence.

Under what is now referred to as The Establishment Clause, Associate Justice Hugo Black wrote "...[t]he establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbelief, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups or visa versa."

The federal courts need to do more than give lip service to the Establishment Clause before rendering decisions that pertain to it. The judiciary needs to actually contemplate the biased manner in which it was applied in Eklund v Byron Union School District.

In July, 2002, the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan filed a 1st Amendment lawsuit on behalf of Jonas and Tiffany Eklund and their children, Chase and Samantha who attended the Excelsior Middle School in the Byron Union School District, The lawsuit dealth with the school's "Islamic simulation" program when Christian children were forced to dress like Muslims and memorize Islamic scriptures.

The program, designed by Shabbir Mansuri, the Fountain Valley, California businessman who founded the Council on Islamic Education, was centered on a textbook, "Across the Centuries."

The text was published by Houghton-Mifflin in 1999—but only after Mansuri assured the publisher that the textbook would withstand any court challenge since Houghton-Mifflin did not want to incur the cost of printing hundreds of thousands of textbooks only to have the courts rule they could not be sold to the school systems for distribution as textbooks to the students.

How does a political activist accomplish that? Work close enough with the bureaucrats within the government and enlist the support of big oil to run interference for you. Mansuri, who describes himself as nothing more than a "...K-12 resource organization," has done something else that no theological educational organization has ever done—or constitutionally should have been able to do. The offices of the Council on Islamic Education—which promotes a religion, Islam—are housed in an unused classroom in Carden Hall Elementary School in Fountain Valley, California. CIE's use of office space within the California public school system is sanctioned by the State of California which actually supports the distribution of the textbook, "Across the Centuries" not only to classrooms throughout the State, but to public school systems all over the United States. This is probably the most constitutional example of a State-sponsored religion that could be found. Yet, when middle school students in Excelsior were forced to wear Islamic garb, pretend they were Muslim, memorize verses from the Qu'ran and play "jihad" games, US District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton decided in a 22-page ruling that the school system was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Islamic names, dress in Islamic garb and memorize and recite Islamic prayers and Qu'ranic scriptures. Yet, students in almost every public school system in America are banned from using the word Christmas because the name "Christ" is included in the word. Am I missing something here?

Judge Hamilton argued in her ruling that the school system, in forcing Christian and Jewish children to pray to Allah, was merely teaching them about Islam, not forcing them to practice the Muslim faith. Yet, children in public schools may not use the word "Christmas" because within it is the name of the Christian deity. Judge Hamilton, who was an administrative law judge in the Clinton bureaucracy with no trial experience, was placed on the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 2000.

As the Thomas More Law Center petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Hamilton's decision, the advocacy organization's chief Counsel, Richard Thompson commented: "This ruling is evidence of a double standard when it comes to religion in public schools. If students had been instructed on Christianity.." (as a history or geography project) "...as they had on Islam, a Constitutional violation would have most likely been found. The appeals court should clarify in a published opinion just how far public schools can go in teaching about religion. Christians want to know." Christians already know. Thompson was merely trying to force the courts to admit the biased truth. There are absolutely no judicial restrictions to the "teaching" of Islam in the public school systems. Nor is there any about Wiccam. Nor about Buddhism. Just about Christianity and, perhaps, Judaism. On Monday, Dec. 19, 2005 a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a brief, unpublished opinion that public school students could be compelled to "become" Muslims for their study. The appellate court also ruled that students could be forced to learn the prayer "Remember Allah always so that you may prosper," in Arabic. The court also saw nothing wrong with forcing children to assume Muslim names, or force them to wear crescent-shaped ID tags containing their Muslim name. Furthermore, the court said the students could be compelled to learn the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith—including fasting.

Imagine for a moment what would happen to a Christian school teacher who forced Muslim students to learn and recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments. The teacher would be summarily fired. The ACLU and a half dozen Islamic advocacy groups would file multimillion dollar lawsuits not only against the teacher and the school, but also against the principal and the school board for the contamination of the minds of the Islamic children who were forced to "play Christian." Because the ruling of the 9th Circuit interferes with parental rights based on the view of the court that the school could compel the children in its care to do things—such as fast, recite Muslim prayers, or anything else that be counter to that family's theological practices—the Thomas More Law Center asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and to rule separately on the free exercise and parental rights claims.

It is important for the American people to realize that the "separation of Church and State" created by the Establishment Clause, applies only to Christians. It does not apply to any other religion—including atheism and Wicca—both of which of which are religions. Nothing brings that reality home to roost more clearly than US District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling in Eklund v Byron Union School District since the bias and lack of judicial consistency—both at the district and appellate court levels—is obvious. The State of California, in Eklund, actually violated the 1st Amendment by promoting a "state-sponsored" religion—Islam. The State did this by providing the Council on Islamic Education office space within a public school, and by helping to insulate the CIE against court challenges in that State. If the State did nothing else, it violated the Constitution. However, the State went beyond the vail by compelling school children to learn and recite Islamic prayers, assume Islamic names and pretend to be Muslim. The court saw nothing wrong with that, yet just the mention of the word "Christmas," causes the ACLU and the ABA to froth at the mouth.

Never in this nation's history has its Christian foundation and moral compass come, so openly—and so successfully—under attack from the secular utopians who are determined to erase Christianity from the world's "acceptable" religions. Why that is happening should be obvious if you study the recent past. At the turn of the 20th century, the international businessmen, bankers and industrialists tried to carve up Europe. To achieve their goal, they started a world war that was supposed to lead to a borderless, stateless Europe. The globalists in the ivory towers of industry and finance and the transnationalist barons of business worked in secret to achieve their lofty objective. When the League of Nations and its world legislature in the Hague failed, an encore—called World War II—was needed. Three months before Pearl Harbor, the USS Augusta rendezvoused with the HMS Prince of Wales in Placentia Bay off the coast of Newfoundland on Sunday, August 10, 1941. In the ocean around the two ships was a virtual amanda of warships. On board the American heavy cruiser was President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Aboard the HMS Prince of Wales was British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. They met, according to banner headlines in America's newspapers on Friday, August 15, to sign a resolution called the Atlantic Charter, which expressed the mutual goals of the historic allies in the postwar world—even though America would not be at war for another 107 days. What FDR and Churchill were actually doing was renovating the League of Nations and fitting it with a red, white and blue suit of clothes to make world government more acceptable to the American people who refused to surrender their sovereignty to Europe in 1920.

In 1920 the globalists, working with Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Pew, Mellon and Morgan money, formed the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. The purpose of the CFR was to change America's mind about world government. From 1920 until their agenda was revealed by the Congressman Carroll Reece and Senator Joe McCarthy in 1955, the globalist agenda was a virtual secret that only the John Birch Society seemed to know about even though it was never a closely guarded secret. In 1941, CFR members Frank Aydelotte and William Yandell Elliott wrote "The City of Man," in which they argued that "...universal peace can be founded only on the unity of man under one law and one government under the law of the world-state...when the heresy of nationalism is conquered and the absurd architecture of the present world is finally dismantled." Elliott and Aydelotte were both Rhodes Scholars.

In 1942, during the dark days of World War II, P.E. Corbett of the Institute of Pacific Relations wrote an "Inquiry Series" article entitled "Post War World" in which he reiterated that "...a world association [of] States may evolve towards one universal federal government...[the process of which]...will have to be assisted by the deletion of the nationalistic material employed in educational textbooks and is replacement by material explaining the benefits of a wider association...World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development...[through]...common economic agencies for advise and control...An economic and financial organization, embracing trade, development and migration...and a central bank. The functions of these organizations...would be to regulate the production and distribution of raw material and food, [and to] control the flow of inter-regional investment and migration." But even though scholarly magazines and journals were openly discussing world government at the end of the war, the American people were completely oblivious of the plans of their national leaders and the barons of banking and industry who, from behind the seats of government, manipulate the politicians they had purchased with millions of dollars in political contributions. Had America been paying attention at the end of World War II, or even in the 1950s and 1960s, they might have been able to stop Congress. Had America listened to Reece and McCarthy and demanded an investigation of the nation's wealthiest foundations that are owned by the world's wealthiest families—and had the American people refused to believe the media's savage attack on Senator Joe McCarthy, or questioned the hit-and-run accident that killed Reece as he crossed Pennsylvania Avenue, hurrying back to the House floor to vote on a measure—we might stopped America's participation in the global experiment. Today, there would be no NAFTA. No CAFTA. No jobs drains to China, Mexico and Pakistan. And Christianity would not be under attack.

But we didn't listen. That's why Christianity is under attack. The globalists must destroy the taproot of liberty in the United States before world governance can be achieved because the American people will not willingly surrender their sovereignty to a world government dominated by those who wish to destroy us. This can only be achieved by destroying the bedrock of faith—Christianity—in America. It is important to the globalists for several reasons. First, the Declaration of Independence affirms that our rights are inalienable. If our rights come from God, people cannot take what God gave—at least, not without a second revolution. If, however, that Deity does not exist, then the Declaration of Independence is just so much poetic rhetoric, and our rights can honestly be construed to come from man and are conditional on the whims of government. Tragically, a nation whose strength comes from its faith in Jesus Christ loses more than faith when it destroys the tethers of faith that binds them to the God who made them strong. In the end, that nation will perish from its lost faith.

To achieve world unity—something that is absolutely essential to create a workable world government devoid of prejudice, hate and war—theological, political and economic parity must exist. That can happen only if my God is not superior to your god; or if my God can't send you to Hell for worshipping your god. That is why the secularists and globalists have joined forces. And that is why an army of over a thousand anti-Christian lawyers have entered the fray. And, conversely, that's why hundreds of municipalities and thousands of businesses have decided this year to erase Christ from Christmas. It's easier to deal with a handful of irate Christian customers than a handful of irate litigious lawyers. Due to the steady increase of ACLU lawsuits over Christmas manger scenes and the use of the word "Christmas" which contains the name of the Christian Messiah, civil rights lawyers all but forced mainstream America to erase religion from the most religious holiday in the world—the date that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

It's hard to believe that an abysmal army of leftist lawyers could trigger such a tidal wave of anti-Christian sentiment that merchants on Main Street America would be afraid to wish their customers "Merry Christmas" out of fear of being sued by a Muslim, Jewish or atheist customer. While the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and several lesser known, unimportant anti-Christian advocacy groups started litigating issues that would somehow limit Christianity's outreach or would, in some other way, be detrimental to Christians, the liberal advocacy expanded to include attacking non-Christian symbols that are associated with Christian holidays—such as erasing the word Christmas from our vernacular because contained in Christmas is "Christ." Or, banning red poinsettias as a "religious symbol" because people buy poinsettias at Christmas. Thirty Christian and conservative advocacy groups founded the ADF in 1993 to protect Christians from religious discrimination. In 1999 two girls were suspended from a middle school in Rochester, Minnesota for wearing red and green neck scarves and saying "Merry Christmas" in a school video. When the far left launched its attack on Christianity it pushed the throttle too far by telling hundreds of school boards and many of America's premiere businesses that they would be sued if they displayed any symbols related to Christian holidays. And, ever so slowly over the last decade, anti-Christian advocacy groups began to erase Christianity from Main Street America. They were so adroit in how they did it that it took many Christians several years to realize what was happening and who was behind it. Even today half of the professing Christians in America believe the other haif is making much-to-do-about-nothing.

But by Thanksgiving 1999, open warfare had erupted between the Christian right and the secular left as the Scottsdale, Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund lined up a "Christian army" of 832 lawyers—each of whom agreed to donate 450 hours—ready to take on school boards or city fathers if they engaged in anti-Christian practices. Joining the ADF this year was Matthew Staver's Liberty Counsel—and 700 more conservative lawyers willing to donate time. In 2003 the ADF took on over a dozen Christmas-related Christian persecution cases. A year later the ADF sent out 6,700 letters to school districts and municipalities advising local officials that the Constitution does not forbid public celebrations of Christmas. As the Christmas shopping season began in 2005, the ADF had already defended over 1,500 Christians who were threatened with lawsuits by civil rights activists.

Most mainline Christians don't feel its a big deal to say "Happy Holiday" or "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas." After all, they argue adroitly, it's not like Jesus was actually born on December 25. (Christians who've actually studied the history and customs of the Holy Land know that when King Herod called for a census, a census-taker did not show up at your door and take a head count. When Herod ordered a census, all of the Jews in the realm would return to the city of their ancestor's birth to be counted. For that reason censuses were taken during the summer when the nights were warm.)

But, while history does not record specifically when Christ was born (since it's His death and resurrection and not His birth that's important to the world), December 25 is the symbolic date that was picked by Jerome, one of the early church scholars on pagan religions, and Augustine, the founder of western Christian theology. As Christian disciples from Rome evangelized Europe, converting the pagans to Christianity, the Church fathers were faced with a dilemma—the converts continued to observe the pagan feast days.

Jerome provided the solution. Rather than fight with the new Christians and risk alienating them, the Church met them halfway. Rather than condemn them for celebrating pagan feast days Jerome, matched the pagan feast days with Christian "feast" events. To the Christian Church, the most important "feast day" was Passover—the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Several pagan feast days were celebrated during the spring equinox. The term "Easter" is Chaldean in origin But many of the traditions we observe around Easter came from the Druids and Anglo-Saxons. The Easter Egg appears to be almost universal, with most pagan societies observing rituals involving the egg. It is believed that the egg is symbolic of Noah's Ark

But, for our purpose, let's look at Christmas—or rather, the pagan feast day celebrated for hundreds of years before the birth of Christ on that date. In Egypt, the son of Isis—the goddess of heaven—was theoretically born on Dec. 25. In the Anglo-Saxon world, Dec. 25 was called Yule-day—or the "child's day." Yule is the Chaldean name for a baby, or "little child." In most pagan societies—long before the Christian era—a festival was celebrated by the pagans between December 25 and the what is now the first week in January. The date honors the birth of the son of the queen of heaven. Jerome and Augustine studied the pagan feast days and matched them, as best they could, with events in the Chrisitian church. When no Biblical event could be matched to a particular pagan feast, one was created. Slowly, over decades, the pagan feasts lost their significance as they were erased from the minds of the Christian converts, who began to observe the Christian holidays instead. Over time, the pagan feast days no longer existed in the memories of men—nor did the pagan religions. They were erased from the minds and hearts of their former followers. This glimpse of history has not been lost on those who are determined to erase Christianity. Just as the Christian Church "erased" the pagan religions of Europe, the utopians believe their current effort will ultimately erase Christianity from the everyday lives of the American people. The early church fathers merely substituted Christian events for the pagan feast days. Over time, the pagan religions were simply erased from existence because the roots of those religions were simply cut off. When the taproot of the tree dies, the tree dies as well. Today, the utopian globalists are doing precisely the same thing to rid society of Christianity. Slowly, they are erasing it by disconnecting it from the symbols—both the holidays and everyday the practices (the taproot, if you will)—associated with Christianity. When—not if—the humanists get their way, public displays of Christianity will be banned, and Christians will not be able to practice their religious beliefs beyond the walls of their own homes. When that taproot dies, Christianity will die.

The ACLU knows if they can make people believe that government has the constitutional authority to tell them how, when and where they may pray—or not pray—then government will have trumped the 1st Amendment and it will be able to dictate religious belief in America just as governments in totalitarian countries do—as all of the governments in the world are now attempting to do.

Today, anti-Christian discrimination is everywhere. It's ugly, and its growing—and, sadly, when it happens, its ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media. When Muslim terrorists attacked four Indonesian girls with machetes as the girls walked to school, beheading three of them, there were no cries of outrage from the world press. On October 29, 2005 Theresia Morangke—age 15, Alfita Poliwo—age 17, Yarni Sambue—age 17 and Noviana Malewa—age 15, were attacked by six hooded men. The vicious machete blows beheaded three of the girls. Only the youngest, Noviana, survived despite a deep, ugly machete wound to the neck. Where was the protest? Buried in media rhetoric that merely noted that the Sulawesi province has a long history of violence between Muslims and Christians. A few days after the beheading, gunmen shot and critically wounded two other schoolgirls in the same area. Since 2000, over a thousand people—most of them Christians—were killed in religious clashes in Sulawesi Province. However, if Christian extremists had beheaded three Muslim schoolgirls on October 29, the story would have made banner headlines on the front pages of every major newspaper in the world. However, since it is now open season on Christians, there is barely a ripple in the media when such attacks occur.

Sadly, while the war against Christianity was launched by activist lawyers, it has been assisted in the United States by both State and federal governments—not the lawmakers, the bureaucracies. Chaplains in the US military are now feeling the brunt of discrimination. Civilian authorities in the Defense Department, feeling the brunt of the ACLU, ABA legal onslaught, have ordered chaplins not to invoke the name of Jesus when they pray. While the Pentagon insists that military policy allows any form of prayer, several chaplins have stepped forward to say that evangelical Protestant prayer is being censored by military "policy."

A US Navy chaplain, Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt, was recently relieved of his duties because, he said, he prayed "in Jesus name." Klingenschmitt said when he was taking his chaplain's training at the Navy Chaplain School in Newport, Rhode Island, he was dismayed to learn that he was being "graded" on the political-correctness of his prayers. "They have a clipboard," he said, "and evaluators evaluate your prayers. They praise you if you pray just to God. But if you pray in Jesus' name, they counsel you." Retired military chaplain Rev. Billy Baugham, who is now the Executive Director of the International Conference of Evangelical Christian Endorsers said that Muslim, Jewish and Roman Catholic chaplins are likewise told not to pray in the name of Allah, in Hebrew, or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. However, he pointed out, restrictions on other religious expression have not yet been tested. "No Islamic chaplain has been refused to pray in the name of Allah. Neither has a rabbi been rebuked for making references to Hanukkah. And no Catholic priest has been rebuked for referring to the Blessed Virgin." To date, only evangelical Protestants have been singled out for rebuke. When Klingenschmitt took his story to the media, a Navy spokesperson, Lt. Erin Bailey told the media in a press conference that the military allows chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah, or any other deity. It is only at public events she said that "...Navy chaplins are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of all those present. They may decline an invitation to pray," she concluded, "if they are not able to do so for conscience reasons."

On October 25, 2005 Congressman Walter Jones [R-NC] send a letter, signed by 71 members of Congress, to the President asking George W. Bush to "...protect by Executive Order the constitutional right of military chaplains to pray according to their faith." Since that date, the American Center for Law and Justice [ACLJ] has gathered over 160,000 signatures on petitions through its website.

The liberal American Bar Association referred to their strategy to defeat Christianity in 1989 as a nuclear weapon. It was more like an ugly cancer that began as an unsightly but largely unnoticed malignant mole that Christians chose to ignore. As it grew and the malignancy became more apparent, America finally become concerned. When the Christian community finally decided they needed to deal with it, the evangelical church discovered that its roots had spread throughout the entire body and it could no longer be excised.

But before we blame the ACLU, Christianity needs to look in a mirror. The United States is not, nor ever was, a theocracy. Nor was it ever a secular nation. We—the Christian community of the free world—allowed the political correctness of the Clinton years take root not only in America but throughout the Bible-believing world. We gave those who were attempting to merge all of the world's religions into a tepid Laodecian vision that is neither hot nor cold—nor theologically relevant—as we prepare the emerging global society for world government. With that world authority comes a world economy with a unified currency—and a world church that neither offends nor condemns. At that moment, the world will open its arms wide and greet Antichrist as its economic Messiah.

 

Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.