WHY DOES POLITICAL DISCOURSE, DEBATE, OR DIVERSITY REQUIRE USING THE BIBLE AS A SHIELD?

United States Declaration of Independence (from here)

I have been wondering what to write. Much of what I have written lately is about the Confederate Memorials. My readers seem interested, but I think we would all agree the controversy is irksome because it seems like such a waste of time, and the debates so angry. Don’t we have more pressing issues? Oddly enough, I don’t think so. Some times our instincts work better than our ability to reason.

What led me to that conclusion? Well, I got a question on this post, Random Ramblings: August 19, 2017.

Doug

August 30, 2017 at 4:52 am

You know, Tom… there are times where it’s so obvious that you fear your “opponents” so much that you raise scripture as if raising the cross in the face of invading vampires to repel them, lest you become infected. Why does political discourse, debate, or diversity require using the Bible as a shield?

This is a fair question, but not so long ago most would have already known the answer. Our  notions about the separation of church and state are relatively new. Past societies have distinguished the office of the head of state and the head of the church (high priest, pope, or whatever), but governments have always justified themselves for religious reasons, not secular. That is why our Declaration of Independence contains explicit references to God, including this one.

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 to 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.

What is different about today? We are too ignorant of our history. The vast majority of us, even our elites, attend secularized schools where we learn to worship human reason, not God. Any serious Christian should find this abhorrent, but the public school system was secularized slowly. So we got used to it before we realize what we had done to our children. And now, after generations of this foolishness, most of us don’t know anything better.

Why are government and religion inextricably linked? Consider what the Declaration of Independence says government exists to do.

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,

In 18th Century America, people believed:

  • Life had value because God created it
  • We are at liberty because God gives us a choice of loving and obeying Him.
  • We choose what makes us happy relative to how we define God. Either we strive to be virtuous as our Father in Heaven wishes us to be, or we pursue idols of our own making.

Thus, the framers of the Constitution thought our notions of morality — and what we believe lawful — depend upon how we define God.

Still, they had a problem. Because they were predominantly Christians, they had come to accept the fact that each man had the right to make his own religious choices. Hence, they included religious protections in the First Amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Therefore, we have what many refer to as a secular state. Some would say that that means that when it comes to government we are supposed to keep our religious beliefs out of it. However, Declaration of Independence argues otherwise. Moreover, the very idea that we can separate our lives into religious and secular spheres is unChristian.

Romans 12:1-2 New King James Version (NKJV)

Living Sacrifices to God

12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Christians glorify God with their whole lives, not just part of their lives.

Look up the definition of secular. Then consider the obvious. Government makes decisions about morality.  Almost nothing satisfies definition of “secular” except those decisions that do not have moral implications, but government is force. Government exists to make people do things they might otherwise choose not do, or it keeps people from doing things they might otherwise do. Therefore, what government does almost always has moral implications.

Ironically, it is that the people who most insist upon the secularization of government who are most insistent that we set up government-run social programs with profound moral implications. These even have a doctrine.

secularism (n.)Look up secularism at Dictionary.com“doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter,” 1846, from secular + -ism.

For all practical purposes, secularism is a religious doctrine based upon the worship of man instead of God. Note the 1846 date in the following etymological definition.

secularize (v.)Look up secularize at Dictionary.com1610s, of property, offices, etc., from secular + -ize. From 1711 as “to become worldly;” from 1846 of education, social institutions, etc. Related: Secularized; secularizing.

Coincidentally, 1846, the year someone started speaking of secularism, is also the year someone started speaking of secularizing education, social institutions, etc.

Nevertheless, some will cite this passage.

Mark 12:13-17 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Pharisees: Is It Lawful to Pay Taxes to Caesar?

13 Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words. 14 When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? 15 Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?”

But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it. 16 So they brought it.

And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And they marveled at Him.

Some will say: “See. Jesus said we can separate our lives into secular and religious spheres.” But that is not what he said. What Jesus said is that when what the lawful government demands is not in conflict with God’s commands we must obey government. In a constitutional republic like our own, that requires each citizen — each of us — to do his best to make certain that our government remains obedient to God. If you doubt that, then read Romans 13:1-7, and keep in mind that the man who wrote that passage was beheaded by the Roman government.

24 thoughts on “WHY DOES POLITICAL DISCOURSE, DEBATE, OR DIVERSITY REQUIRE USING THE BIBLE AS A SHIELD?

  1. Some good stuff here Tom, you really get to the root of things. It’s interesting how many have forgotten, or just refuse to admit more likely, that government is a force and the more it expands, the more powerful and fierce it becomes at the expense of individual liberty. That is a plain and simple fact and thus should be the starting point for debate on government programs and where they fit in to this moral reality.

    My experience tells me that the people who most wish to expand government reach are also the ones who want to kick religion out of the public sphere the most. This is not coincidental.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Good stuff, Tom. One reason I raise the bible is because I have learned that the closet we align ourselves with the word , the more freedom we have. That’s a real paradox for some people, but it is those same values that have granted atheists the right to not believe and the weak to actually survive.

    Like

    1. One reason I raise the bible is because I have learned that the closer we align ourselves with the word , the more freedom we have.

      Real freedom is freedom from sin. If we are a slave to envy, gluttony, greed or avarice, lust, pride, sloth, and wrath; how can we be free? If we cannot control ourselves, how can we control our government?

      Unfortunately, some people refuse to admit they are sinners; they don’t even accept the validity of the concept of sin, except perhaps with respect to other people. So they are comfortable proposing and implementing absurd ideas. For example, they create programs to raid the public treasury so the can redistribute the wealth, and they laugh when anyone tells them that is stealing. Yet redistributing the wealth allows politicians to buy people’s votes, thereby threatening the financial and moral well-being of our country.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Very true IB and interesting too because I just saw a quote today, at my gym, of all places, that said “discipline brings freedom”. Now I don’t think they meant it in a biblical way, but it made me think how following God’s rules of acting/behaving in specific ways allows us to avoid the bondage submitting to anything above God will bring.

      Oh those closets we align ourselves with! 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Interesting observation.

        There are good people who are not Christians. No point in insisting otherwise. The reasons the Romans and the Greeks were able to create republics is that their gods were not especially evil. The Romans had strong notions about honor and justice. The Greeks were relatively determined to see thing as they are, and the Romans studied their philosophy. Consider, for example, that Aristotle wrote a book on ethics that defined happiness as being virtuous.

        The Canaanites on the other hand had some truly vile gods. So they were first class merchants, but what was their idea of good ethics. It seems they were most concerned about getting the best price possible for their souls.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The Founding Fathers also incorporated philosophical concepts from various philosophers of the day, and the past… along with Christian precepts. The Declaration was a document that included many different moral and political views of the day. Christianity, at the time, was the far more dominant religion, because it was brought over from Europe with the early settlers. But besides that, there are many aspects of the Ten Commandments that are also reflected morally in other major religions. To proclaim we “are one nation, under God…” or “In God we trust” are statements not out of line with other major religions who also favor an omnipotent deity called “God”.
    I see absolutely no contest with basing political thought on moral precepts that are common in many religions. I DO contest the idea that a democratic government, being a critical part of a free and open society, subscribing to a single religion.
    Hence, you cite public education as a religious “failing”. I personally find no issue with public education being the responsibility of the home and family and the church of their choice; morality can be taught at home and at church. The APPLICATION of morality within our society, human interaction to assure some level of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is part of public education.

    You might find interesting chuq’s recent post at Insaner Thought…
    https://lobotero.com/2017/08/30/american-religion-perverted/

    Like

    1. @Doug

      What the public, that is, the government has an obligation to do is to verify parents fulfill their obligation to provide at least a minimum education for their children. Generally, I detest the whole idea of redistributing the wealth. However, I rather doubt I can convince most people that children don’t have a “right” to education, but it still isn’t a right. When someone else pays for our education, we are receiving charity. We are the beneficiary of a privilege. What is obvious, however, is that society benefits when children are educated. Therefore, there is some logic in providing poor parents education vouchers. What makes no sense is politicians owning and operating schools on behalf of the public. Government-run anything costs too much and is ripe for abuse.

      The post at Insaner Thought first cites PBS. Then it cites someone who does not know what he is talking about. That latter citation is a hatchet job on Trump and anyone who dares to associate with him.

      I watched PBS for years. I finally could not stomach it anymore. There are two reasons: 1. They are too biased. 2. They receive taxpayer dollars.

      Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

      Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet choose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislature and ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; … that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; and therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust or emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religions opinion, is depriving him injudiciously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emolumerits, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, … and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate ; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. (from here => https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)

      Why did Trump receive the support of Christians? We are not idiots. We know Trump’s background. We also know he is not H. Clinton. Instead of calling us names, he asked for our support. Just because someone like that ignorant professor is going to say bad things about us, are we supposed to vote for H. Clinton? Was her stance on abortion, euthanasia, school choice, hate speech, forcing religion out of the public square, homosexuality, and so forth compatible with our beliefs. Was she not trying to hide her foul deeds by keeping a server with classified data in her basement? Was it not obvious she was selling her office to the highest bidder? How does anyone earn hundreds of millions on a government salary? Yet the legacy news media approved of her. So we must be bigots and idiots for voting for Trump?

      When Trump received the nomination, I was not happy. However, the man has the courage to stand up and fights, and for the most part I agree with what he fights for.

      That said I can see that Trump evokes a visceral reaction in people. Some like him. Some hate him. Some, like myself, respect his abilities and sense of certain sort of integrity. Without question the man is vain. Nevertheless, I have not seen anything that suggests he is anywhere near as corrupt as some of the establishment politicians in DC. He was almost certainly a better choice than H. Clinton.

      Do I like everything about him? No, but when he is doing what I want I will support him.

      What the news media is doing right now is making Trump the issue. They are going after the man with personal accusations, and they not honest about those accusations. You don’t like what Trump stands for? Then make that your issue, and stop attacking the man personally. It is not right.

      Some years back I considered the religious beliefs of the founders. For what it is worth.

      https://citizentom.com/2008/09/10/deism-and-the-founding-fathers/

      Like

      1. I caught your mention about Trump not being corrupt (oh, btw, good quote on Jefferson) and I find a bit of a paradox. At this point of my knowledge about the man I will absolutely agree that Trump is likely the least corrupt of the corruptible. Of that I would have to acknowledge, Tom. I feel that if Mueller finds something it will likely not be some overt intent but more some oddball guilt by omission. Trump’s personal needs do not include a desire for money or even a desire for omnipotent power. This eliminates the motivations of most who go corrupt. More and more I am thinking Trump is a prisoner of his own ego, self-esteem, self-worth.. whatever. He quite literally is in his own world. He’s achieved his wealth and he’s achieved a level of popularity because of his showmanship. He is absolutely not a politician because he can’t get into the concept and he’s managed to alienate most of his own party in Congress because he simply can’t contain his mis-timed bravado and outspokenness and at his age he’s never gonna change.

        Yes.. I have to admit… his corruptibility is far less than I might expect from any of his predecessors simply because he has no incentive to do so. Now.. does that in itself mean anything toward his effectiveness or not as President? I honestly believe he doesn’t want the job.. and deep down he’s not serious about it. Consider this, Tom… if he were truly trying… honestly trying…. he’d have built on bettering relationships, networking… doing that art of the deal business… negotiating… and playing the game and not trying to discredit the game. You and the other supporters sent him to Washington to clean it up, drain the swamp of the elites… and all he’s done is get himself isolated. You have to play the game to win at the game. You can’t go there to change the game to fit how you want to play it.

        There are days, Tom, I actually feel sorry for the guy. Then he goes and does something else gawd awful. 🙂

        Like

        1. “Consider this, Tom… if he were truly trying… honestly trying…. he’d have built on bettering relationships, networking… doing that art of the deal business… negotiating… and playing the game and not trying to discredit the game. You and the other supporters sent him to Washington to clean it up, drain the swamp of the elites… and all he’s done is get himself isolated. You have to play the game to win at the game. You can’t go there to change the game to fit how you want to play it.”

          The following (head’s up, it’s LONG, but worth the read) anecdotal experience is the best explanation of the anatomy of bureaucracy I have ever read. This is one little study, in a hospital. Take this experience and multiply it by a million and you’ve got an approximation of what it’s like in Washington.

          http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/

          “I sometimes worry that people misunderstand the case against bureaucracy. People imagine it’s Big Business complaining about the regulations preventing them from steamrolling over everyone else. That hasn’t been my experience. Big Business – heck, Big Anything – loves bureaucracy. They can hire a team of clerks and secretaries and middle managers to fill out all the necessary forms, and the rest of the company can be on their merry way. It’s everyone else who suffers. The amateurs, the entrepreneurs, the hobbyists, the people doing something as a labor of love. Wal-Mart is going to keep selling groceries no matter how much paperwork and inspections it takes; the poor immigrant family with the backyard vegetable garden might not.

          Bureaucracy in science does the same thing: limit the field to big institutional actors with vested interests. No amount of hassle is going to prevent the Pfizer-Merck-Novartis Corporation from doing whatever study will raise their bottom line. But enough hassle will prevent a random psychiatrist at a small community hospital from pursuing his pet theory about bipolar diagnosis. The more hurdles we put up, the more the scientific conversation skews in favor of Pfizer-Merck-Novartis. And the less likely we are to hear little stuff, dissenting voices, and things that don’t make anybody any money.

          He gets some of the above wrong (the finer points…for example a profit incentive will not ipso facto eliminate inefficiency, but it can help curb it, whereas government has no such incentive), but the overall point remains: Change is hard. It might be impossible in Washington. Had Hillary been elected after two decades of consolidating thousands of supporters I have no doubt she would’ve been very efficient at getting things done. To our extreme detriment.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Good viewpoint, Anon. But bureaucracy is inherent with a free market democracy. On one hand America encourages innovation, feeding the dream of developing yourself to excel, invent, to personally profit and achieve the rewards of success from your hard work, and add to the economic juggernaut that makes America great.
          Just don’t sell me crap that doesn’t work, is dangerous; don’t take economic advantage of me or my economic class, don’t try to get a market edge in order to feed the “greed” for profits by influencing elected officials to makes favorable laws at my expense; don’t feed the greed for profits at the expense of nature; and most important, don’t offend my morals or economic status by exercising YOUR desire to achieve the American dream.

          Uh huh… Make America great again.

          Like

        3. I don’t think anon is either anti-government or wholly against the need for bureaucracies. What anon pointed out is that we have more government and more bureaucrats than we could possibly need.

          We need a government to protect us from each other. Nevertheless, as awful as it may to live in a land without any government, living in a totalitarian state isn’t much of an improvement.

          Are we in a totalitarian state? Not yet, but we no longer have a functional constitutional republic. Too often we have allowed our leaders to ignore the Constitution. In addition, the 16th and 17th Amendments have allowed the central government to seize too much power at the expense of the states.

          Like

        4. I’m just very glad we don’t have someone to the left of Gloria Steinem as Secretary of Defense. To me that’s one of the most important jobs. Last guy Obama chose didn’t meet with a single Joint Chief for the first six months in office. That didn’t make the papers, interestingly enough.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. Just to add, USAF leadership is unbelievably good right now. The problem is Congress. I cannot believe those clowns cannot pass a budget when they own the majority right now and have a Republican president. Their one real job and they can’t do it. It’s disgusting. Mattis is right. No enemy in the field has done more harm to military readiness than sequestration (Congress).

          Liked by 1 person

        6. @anon

          That bureaucracy thing is hilarious. I spent years working for the government. The red tape is the primary reason I never had much interest in starting my own business.

          As a Conservative, I sometime felt a little conflicted working for the government, but someone has to work for DoD, and DoD is what I know.

          Bureaucracy in science does the same thing: limit the field to big institutional actors with vested interests. No amount of hassle is going to prevent the Pfizer-Merck-Novartis Corporation from doing whatever study will raise their bottom line. But enough hassle will prevent a random psychiatrist at a small community hospital from pursuing his pet theory about bipolar diagnosis. The more hurdles we put up, the more the scientific conversation skews in favor of Pfizer-Merck-Novartis. And the less likely we are to hear little stuff, dissenting voices, and things that don’t make anybody any money.

          When we consider subjects like “global warming”, “the theory of evolution”, and drug testing, that paragraph on the bureaucracy should make our hair stand on end.

          Bureaucracies tend to be amoral in character. They may or may be filled with trustworthy, caring souls. It depends upon the nature of the work, whether it is ethical or not. There are always people who want a steady paycheck, and they are always people who can be hired to do anything whether it is moral or not. If the work is profitable, it can be made to appear respectable. Money has a way of lending respectability to the most dastardly deeds.

          Like

        7. @Doug

          You are well ahead of some. At least you don’t think Trump has done anything illegal.

          When we talk about Trump’s psychology and motivations, we are not talking about Trump. We are talking about our reactions to Trump. Our reactions may or may not be correct. Considering the widely divergent views about the man and our own personal biases, what is the significance of what you just said about the man? It means you are not inclined to listen to Trump or take him seriously. Think about it. He is the president of the United States. He is also a rich man with a lovely family. And you feel sorry for him? Where is the evidence that indicates he feels sorry for himself?

          Was Trump elected to act like a politician? That’s not why I voted for him. The politicians — that is, the denizens of The Swamp — don’t want to negotiate because they have put their own interests above those of our country’s interests. Trump is making that all too obvious. If he succeeds in revealing that truth to increasing numbers of people, that will rank as one of the great successes of his administration. To make good decisions, we must have good data.

          If you cannot get your focus off Trump and onto the issues, you won’t be able to view the issues objectively. Instead, everything you see will be colored by your dislike of Trump.

          Consider. We each have a point of view. Our personal biases color what we see. If we want to perceive things accurately, at least get closer to the truth, then we have to set aside our biases.

          What is the best we can do to set aside our biases? Christians try to see everything as God sees things. This is the first step in achieving humility. The second is becoming obedient to God.

          What I consider one of my best posts is based upon two Bible passages and something Adam Smith wrote: => https://citizentom.com/2010/02/28/an-occasion-for-a-humbling-comparison/

          Perhaps that post will help you to understand what I am getting at.

          Like

        8. Every once in a while, Tom.. you trip a nerve in making a statement.

          “And you feel sorry for him? Where is the evidence that indicates he feels sorry for himself?”

          While I think you mean that in another context that I am reading it, It’s rather profound from the standpoint that it is accurate to the man’s persona. He will never feel sorry for himself… yet that feeling is a very human feeling that can tend to help us balance our individual perception of ourselves as it relates to the world around us. It suggests a level of humbleness, which is a good shot to any of us from time to time. Trump never experiences this hence he has a less of an idea regarding his image to the world around him.

          Regarding voting for the guy you like to be president…
          I personally think a voter has two essential responsibilities. 1. Voting at all. 2. Bearing some responsibility in understanding, a reasonable assumption, if the person can achieve what they are professing, rather than just voting for the person because they may sing a tune I like. For example, back in 1964 I was too young to vote, but I liked the tough talk and what Goldwater said, and his version of republicanism (for what that meant at the time). Yet deep down I didn’t think him appropriate for being president because he was “too maverick”; I saw a future of confusion and potential radical changes, and I wasn’t ready for that, nor did I think the country needed that at the time.

          Hey.. I have a suggestion. You mention quite often about leaving the man alone and come to grips with the issues instead. I do not in the least believe the two can morally or ethically be separated.. but consider a post of the issues alone for discussion. I’m not suggesting any sort of grand debate.. but I would be willing to share opinion on issues alone.

          Liked by 1 person

        9. @Doug

          Humility is a rather complicated thing, but I doubt feeling sorry for ourselves helps. Humility is not about feeling weak and helpless and dependent. It has more to with not thinking about ourselves.

          Why would we want to see things from God’s viewpoint? We finally realize He loves us and He is HOLY. We finally have enough sense to be awed by that, enough that we want to return His love and glorify Him. Really, that is what we do when love someone. We give them the glory with our service.

          Is Trump a humble man? If I had to guess, I would guess not, but I don’t know. Who is most humble? Me? To state such a thing would be to prove otherwise. How can we measure such a thing as humility? God knows, but us? I don’t think so.

          You may find this amusing.
          => https://citizentom.com/2009/05/31/benjamin-franklin-on-pride-and-humility/

          A post on voting as it relates the candidate and the issues? I suppose I could do that. Thanks for the suggestion.

          Like

        10. “When we consider subjects like “global warming”, “the theory of evolution”, and drug testing, that paragraph on the bureaucracy should make our hair stand on end.”

          Precisely. Which is why the condescending “I-couldn’t-give-you-a-straight-answer-to-save-my-life-and-yet-you’re-the-stupid-one” folks like Professor Taboo drive me nuts.

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Musings Of An Imaginary Billionaire

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: