Pay Up!

Politicians, when campaigning, routinely promise to make the wealthy pay their "fair share" when it comes to taxes.  This assumes at least two things, 1) that the wealthy do not already pay their "fair share", and 2) someone else is paying more than their justified burden.  This concept is politically charged, re-affirming to people who believe they pay too much in taxes.  Unfortunately, it fails considerably by asking a few simple questions.  With the tax cuts implemented by former President George W. Bush set to expire this year, this rhetoric is all the more powerful.  Is the middle class and poor picking up the slack in the tax burden the wealthy in this country are skirting?

The first question, "who are the rich?", is often not directly asked of the one making the claim, and when asked, is often evaded.  Since there is no official definition, the "rich" is defined by the audience to whom the politician is speaking.  Who exactly are the rich?  $100,000 per year, $200,000?  

The next question I have never heard asked, "what is their fair share?".  If it is so obvious that the "rich" are not paying their "fair share" there should be an amount that is considered fair.  What is the amount?  Apparently, whatever the rich are paying, it is not their fair share according to those making the claim.

So who actually pays taxes?  According to the IRS, its the wealthy.  Those tax payers earning $113k and more a year pay 71% of all taxes paid. For the tax year 2007:

• Top 1%, $410,096+ paid 40.42% of all taxes
• Top 5%, $160,041+ paid 60.63% of all taxes
• Top 10%, $113,018+ paid 71.22% of all taxes
• Top 25%, $66,532+ paid 86.59% of all taxes
• Top 50%, $32,879+ paid 97.11% of all taxes
• Bottom 50%  < $32,879  paid 2.89% of all taxes(1)

Ten percent of the people who earn money pay 71% of the burden.  Sure they pay the bulk, but the Bush tax cuts favored the rich, didn't they?  While the average family in America whose income was $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, the middle class received less than $100 off their tax bill. On its face it looks like most tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

However there was more investing, hiring by businesses rose, and a much stronger stock market. When compared with the amount of taxes paid under the old system to those paid after the Bush tax cuts were implemented, the wealthy are now actually paying a higher proportion of taxes. IRS data showed an increase of more than $100 billion in taxes paid by the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed income of more than $1 million rose from about 180,000 in 2003 to more than 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by millionaire households increased by approximately 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

Image credit: chart illustrations by MacNeill & MacIntosh

The dirty secret is lower taxes produces more revenue to the government in the form of taxes collected.  Lower capital gains tax means more people invest more money more often.  For example, if it cost $15 per $100 earned in the stock market, as opposed to $30 per $100, which scenario is likely to encourage investing?  There is more money to be made at a lower tax cost which encourages more investing, which equates to more taxes by volume received by the government.

While the taxes paid by the middle class might be felt more heavily on their budget, they are not the primary tax payers.  The fact remains the wealthiest Americans pay the most taxes, certainly more than what I would consider their "fair share".  Not because I am among the wealthy, but because of the massive disproportion of burden between the wealthy and middle class, which make up really all the tax payers, the least wealthy Americans pay virtually no federal income tax at all.  Now you may think the rich ought to pay more, which is an opinion many hold, but by no means are they not paying their "fair share".

Another misconception is further developed by this "fair share" rhetoric, when politicians claim to make plans to tax corporations at a higher rate.  Unfortunately this idea is very deceptive.  Corporations do not pay income taxes, the consumer does.  It is a hidden tax on the people.  Income taxes are an expense to corporations.  Much like the electric bill, property taxes and income taxes are built into the product or service consumer price.  If the tax rate goes up, the cost for the product or service goes up.  For example, if I own a large profitable company producing one million widgets per year, and factoring in all expenses: utilities, labor, insurance, and taxes etc. those costs are built into the product.  Say the actual cost of producing a widget is $12.65.  The cost the consumer will pay will might be $22.95.  If my company's taxes rise by a half million dollars per year, that amounts to a 50 cent increase in cost per widget.  Do you think my company will simply absorb the half million dollar loss in revenue caused by the tax increase, or will the cost of the widget to the consumer rise?  The consumer will see an increase in the cost of the product which in effect pays the corporation's tax increase.

Do not be drawn in by silver tongued politicians who promise to stick it to the other guy, the other guy is usually you, it's just not immediately obvious.  I will end this commentary with a popularly circulated analogous short article about taxes, and has circulated the Internet for years, it has been attributed to various professors and economists. Although its original authorship remains a matter of speculation, Snopes.com says it was first printed in a letter to the editor in The Chicago Tribune.

---

Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.  The 10 men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."  Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 percent savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33 percent savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28 percent savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25 percent savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22 percent savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16 percent savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"'Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!".

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.  The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

---

1) ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Finders Keepers

It is a widely believed notion that the Founding Fathers of America were mainly Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists.  So widely believed that the idea is taught in most major universities.  This "fact" about the Founders usually makes it's way to the discourse when the phrase "Christian Nation" makes it's way to public discussion.  But is this "fact" true, were the vast majority of the Founders Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists?  What information are proponents of a "secular founding" using to come to their conclusion?  And how could one actually know the religious nature of the founding era and of the Founders themselves?  Fortunately for us, the Founders were prolific writers, both in private and public arenas.

Critics say when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they intentionally included: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3).  And that nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention religion, except excluding uses, the terms "Christianity, Bible, Jesus Christ,or God" even once.

Of the three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789), there are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)

It is important to define who and what makes one a Founding Father. There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, and the 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (though not all signed) are regarded as Founding Fathers by historians, also those in significant Military positions as well as a few others considered pivotal to the formation of the States. 

Citing the U.S. Constitution as prohibiting religious tests and mentioning  Christianity, Bible, Jesus Christ,or  God" opponents of a Christian foundation attempting to conclude that the founders in no way intended Christian theism to influence or be the overriding factor in the formation of America.  Well, this is and isn't true.  As the independent states came together under the heading of one banner, the United States, they had specific intentions for the federal government.  We see the Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights, what cannot be done by the Federal Government, using terms like shall not, and cannot in reference to the Federal Government.  The reason for this was the desire for the States to preserve the right to govern themselves and let the Federal Government handle foreign affairs.  There was no need to inject religion and specifically Christianity into the Constitution since it was not a religious document.  Religion was to be considered a local issue.  Whether there were or weren't specific religions or tests were to be for the states to decide.  Looking at the original State's Constitutions confirms this.

---

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:  " I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: " I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."  - Constitution of Delaware; September 21, 1776 (1) (emphasis added)

---

ART. VI. The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected; except the freeholders of the counties of Glynn and Camden, who are in a state of alarm, and who shall have the liberty of choosing one member each, as specified in the articles of this constitution, in any other county, until they have residents sufficient to qualify them for more; and they shall be of the Protestant religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds. - Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777 (2) (emphasis added)

---

XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county. (emphasis added).

In Article 33 of the Constitution of Maryland we see the State did not allow compulsion to go to church or give money to a particular church, unless obliged by contract to do so.  But the State could tax the citizens for the specific purpose of supporting the Christian religion.  This is quite explicit approval of Christianity, that the state would write into law specific support for a particular religion.  The Constitution goes on to say:

XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion. - Constitution of Maryland, November 11, 1776(3), (emphasis added)

---

XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. - Constitution of North Carolina, December 18, 1776(4)

---

SECT. 10 ...And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:  I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State. - Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776(5)

---

Section IX ...And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. " I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion." - Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777(6)

---

It is painfully obvious that it was not the over all intention for the Founders of America to reject religion and Christianity from government, since nearly all the first State Constitutions required an affirmation of not only religious belief in God, but specifically Christianity.  The omition in the Federal Constitution was by design, to allow the individual states the right to govern themselves without Federal interferance.  As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

I consider the government of the United States [the federal government] as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [the First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [the Tenth Amendment]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States

If we go back even further to the original charters, the official governing documents of the settlers, we see laid out their intentions upon arrival.  What do the founding documents say in regards to the religious intentions of those who first settled here?

---

...whereby Our said People Inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderly Conversation may win and invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true GOD, and He Saviour of Mankind, and the Christian Faith. - Charter of Connecticut - 1662 (7)

BECAUSE no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting In this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and professes him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion. AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively, he or they solemnly promising, when lawfully required, Allegiance to the King as Sovereign, and Fidelity to the Proprietary and Governpr, and taking the Attests as now established by the Law made at Newcastle, in the Year One Thousand and Seven Hundred, entituled, An Act directing the Attests of several Officers and Ministers, as now amended and confirmed this present Assembly. - Charter of Delaware - 1701(8)

XXII. And if, peradventure, hereafter it may happen, that any Doubts or Questions should arise concerning the true Sense and Meaning of any Word, Clause, or Sentence, contained in this our present Charter, We will charge and command, That Interpretation to be applied always, and in all Things, and in all Courts and Judicatories whatsoever, to obtain which shall be judged to be the more beneficial, profitable, and favorable to the aforesaid now Baron of Baltimore, his Heirs and Assigns: Provided always, that no Interpretation thereof be made, whereby God's holy and true Christian Religion, or the Allegiance due to Us, our Heirs and Successors, may in any wise suffer by Change, Prejudice, or Diminution - The Charter of Maryland : 1632(9)

...We according to our princely Inclination, favouring much their worthy Disposition, in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty,...- The Charter of New England : 1620(10)

will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyaltye: Now know bee, that wee beinge willinge to encourage the hopefull undertakeinge of oure sayd lovall and loveinge subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise and enjovment of all theire civill and religious rights, appertaining to them, as our loveing subjects; and to preserve unto them that libertye, in the true Christian ffaith and worshipp of God, - Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations - July 15, 1663(11).  Note: early english was much different than modern english we know now and the spellings here in are correct spellings at the time it was written.

We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government: DO, by these our Letters Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires. - The First Charter of Virginia; April 10, 1606(12)

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another..." Mayflower Compact 1620(13)

---

I believe the misrepresentation of the intent and wording of the Constitution is intentional.  Not so much for the average denier of the Founders Christianity since they are usually parroting what they have been taught by college professors and popular authors.  It is these professors and authors who know how to research this information, and as part of their duty in writing and teaching history, have an obligation to include all the information, not just that which supports their agenda.  These documents are all readily available online with simple search terms such as: "original state constitutions".  Most people are comfortable repeating what they heard somewhere from someone who appeared authoritative, and have little motivation to investigate.  After all when you think you are correct, how much more investigating do you do?

The Treaty of Tripoli is generally the the last resort for the proponent of a Christian-less Nation.  The treaty was negotiated during the "Powers of Barbary Conflict".  The Barbary Conflict continued through the three presidencies of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams.  The Muslim Barbary Powers of Tripoli, Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis were warring against what they considered to be the "Christian" nations of England, Denmark, France, Spain, and the United States. In 1801, the nation of Tripoli declared war on the United States, initiating America's first official war as an independent nation.  During the conflict, the Barbary Powers regularly attacked the defenseless U.S. merchant ships. The Barbary Powers were capturing and enslaving "Christian" crew members, and their cargo, in retaliation for what had been done to them by Christians of centuries prior (Crusades and the expulsion of Muslims from Granada, for example).  Attempting to secure a release of captured American crew members and a guarantee of unhindered passage in the Mediterranean region, President Washington dispatched ships to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations.  The American envoys negotiated a number of treaties with the Muslim Barbary nations for the protection of U.S. commercial ships passing through the region. Unfortunately, the terms of the treaty were usually unfavorable to America, requiring the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in "tribute" (a warship to Tripoli, a frigate to Algiers, $525,000 in ransom paid for captured American crew members from Algiers) to the Muslim nations. The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of many treaties in which the countries would officially recognize the religion of the other attempting to prevent further possibility of a Holy War between Muslims and Christians.  The oft quoted Article 11 reads in part, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...".  On its face this seems to be an open and shut case.  Unless you keep reading for the context, the entire Article reads:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Reading the Article in its full text reveals that America was intending to differentiate itself from other nations which held an inherent hatred toward Muslims.  It assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like the nations of previous centuries which sought out war with the Muslim nations, and would not provoke a religious war against them.  Additionally, This Treaty is written in the context of the Federal Government, and as such in this historical and legal way, to declare this country is not in any way a Christian nation is correct.  In that the Federal Government was not Christian in the same way Muslim governments are Muslim. 

Next advocates for the Atheist, Agnostic, Deist Founders continue by citing some Founding Fathers with personal quotations made throughout their lives.  There is nothing wrong with quoting someone with their own words, after all who better to know what a person believes than the person himself?  Unfortunately, only the few actual Atheist, Agnostic, and Deist founders are quoted.  Yes, some were, but they could be counted on two hands.  To get the overall consensus of the religious beliefs of the Founders, one must not be sparse in their citation, after all there were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, and 40 who signed the U.S. Constitution, 39 Delegates and the Secretary.  However the Founders quoted is usually confined to, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine (who was not a Founding Father), and Ethan Allen.  So what do the rest of the Founding Fathers have to say?

---

I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism, and atheism prevail in the world. BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(14)

You have . . . received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country. . . . Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct. WILLIAM SAMUEL JOHNSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION(15)

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.  GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, PENMAN AND SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION(16)

[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.  BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(17)

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. NOAH WEBSTER(18)

[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most
agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries
incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience
to be its best support. THOMAS JEFFERSON(19)

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of
inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that the Union of the
States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine
Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New
Testament. BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(20)

The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never
invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing]
Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was
improper to read the Bible at schools. [T]he Bible, when not read
in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . [It]
should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from
its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which
is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.
BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(21)

[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school
book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The
reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts
long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm
hold of the mind. FISHER AMES,
AUTHOR OF THE HOUSE LANGUAGE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT(22)

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for
their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by
the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia, what a Paradise
would this region be. I have examined all [religions] . . . and the
result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more
of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen. JOHN ADAMS(23)

The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches
us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore
to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts. JOHN JAY,
ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT(24)

Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot
pursue wicked courses. JAMES MCHENRY, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION(25)

I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of
republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally
itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political
and religious institutions in the world. BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(26)

However gradual may be the growth of Christian knowledge and
moral reformation, yet unless it be begun, unless the seeds are
planted, there can be no tree of knowledge and, of course, no fruit.
The attempt to Christianize the heathen world and to produce
peace on earth and goodwill towards men is humane, Christian,
and sublime. WILLIAM ELLERY, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(27)

History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the
necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian
religion above all others, ancient or modern. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN(28)

[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible in that age, men
were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. The Bible is . . .
a book which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own
dignity, and his equality with his fellow man. DANIEL WEBSTER(29)

[T]he Christian religion is superior to every other. . . . But there is
not only an excellence in the Christian morals, but a manifest
superiority in them to those which are derived from any other
source. JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION(30)

[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence. NOAH WEBSTER(31)

[T]he Holy Scriptures. . . . can alone secure to society, order and
peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government,
purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase
penal laws and draw entrenchments [protections] around our
institutions. JAMES MCHENRY, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION(32)

[T]he rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a
higher source—from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.
JOHN DICKINSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION;
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA(33)

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. JOHN ADAMS(34)

From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American
Union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized
men and Christians. . . . They were bound by the laws of God, which
they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all,
acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. The Declaration of
Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United
States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an
independent nation of Christians. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS(35)

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being,
and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the
responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral
accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the
cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—
these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered
community. It is indeed difficult to conceive how any civilized
society can well exist without them.JOSEPH STORY, U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE; FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE(36)

And, at all events, it is impossible for those who
believe in the truth of Christianity as a Divine revelation, to doubt
that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it
among all the citizens and subjects. It yet remains a problem to
be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be
permanent where the public worship of God and the support of
religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any
assignable shape. JOSEPH STORY, U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE;
FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE(37)

The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance,
much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by
prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian
sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which
should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive
patronage of the national government JOSEPH STORY, U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE;
FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE(38)

---

Below is a list of private affiliations the Founders held.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: Vice-President of the American Bible Society; member of the Massachusetts Bible Society.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Chaplain in the American Revolution for two years.

JOEL BARLOW (DIPLOMAT UNDER WASHINGTON AND ADAMS): Chaplain in the American Revolution for three years.

JOSEPH BLOOMFIELD (GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY): Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

ELIAS BOUDINOT (PRESIDENT OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS):
Founder and first President of the American Bible Society; President of the New Jersey Bible Society; member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; member of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

JAMES BOWDOIN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JOHN BROOKS (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): President of Middlesex County Bible Society.

JAMES BROWN (U. S. SENATOR; DIPLOMAT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JAMES BURRILL, JR. (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT; U. S. SENATOR): President of the Providence Auxiliary Bible Society.

DEWITT CLINTON (GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK; U. S. SENATOR; INTRODUCED THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT): Manager and Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

FRANCIS DANA (MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; CHIEFJUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT; U. S. MINISTER TO RUSSIA): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JOHN DAVENPORT (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; U. S. CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut.

SAMUEL DEXTER (SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER ADAMS; U. S. CONGRESSMAN; U. S. SENATOR): Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

JONAS GALUSHA (GOVERNOR OF VERMONT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

WILLIAM GASTON (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

CHARLES GOLDSBOROUGH (GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

WILLIAM GRAY (LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

FELIX GRUNDY (U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Proposed formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government to other nations.

JOHN HAMILTON (MAJOR-GENERAL IN THE REVOLUTION; U. S. CONGRESS): Member of the New Jersey Bible Society.

JOHN JAY (ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT): President of the American Bible Society; member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

WILLIAM JONES (GOVERNOR OF RHODE ISLAND): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

FRANCIS SCOTT KEY (ATTORNEY; AUTHOR OF “THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER”): Manager and Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union.

RUFUS KING (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Selected as manager of the American Bible Society.

ANDREW KIRKPATRICK (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT): Vice-President of the New Jersey Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): Member of the American Sunday School Union.

JOHN LANGDON (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

BENJAMIN LINCOLN (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others.

JOHN LOWELL (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others.

GEORGE MADISON (GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JOHN MARSHALL (CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT; SECRETARY OF STATE; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; officer in the American Sunday School Union.

JAMES MCHENRY (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): President of the Baltimore Bible Society.

DAVID LAWRENCE MORRIL (GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; U. S. SENATOR): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; Manager in the American Sunday School Union.

JOSEPH NOURSE (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; U. S. TREASURY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

ROBERT TREAT PAINE (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Military Chaplain.

ALBION PARRIS (GOVERNOR OF MAINE): Manager of the American Sunday School Union.

WILLIAM PHILLIPS (LT. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR 11 TERMS):
President of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians; President of the Massachusetts Bible Society; a member of the American Board of Foreign Missions; Vice-President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Society for Educating Pious Youth for the Gospel Ministry.

CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): President of the Charleston Bible Society;  Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

THOMAS POSEY (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF INDIANA; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

RUFUS PUTNAM (REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; FEDERAL JUDGE): President of the Ohio Bible Society.

BENJAMIN RUSH (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Founder and manager of the Philadelphia Bible Society.

ISAAC SHELBY (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

JOHN COTTON SMITH (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): President of the Litchfield County Foreign Missionary Society; first President of the Connecticut Bible Society; President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Board of Foreign Missions.

CALEB STRONG (CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

JAMES SULLIVAN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

INCREASE SUMNER (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others.

WILLIAM TILGHMAN (FEDERAL JUDGE; CHIEF-JUSTICE OF PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

SMITH THOMPSON (U. S. SUPREME COURT; SECRETARY OF NAVY): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

DANIEL TOMPKINS (GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK; VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE U. S.): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

JOHN TREADWELL (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut.

ROBERT TROUP (FEDERAL JUDGE; SECRETARY OF WAR): Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

PETER VROOM (GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

BUSHROD WASHINGTON (U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE): Vice-President of the American Bible Society; Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union.

WILLIAM WIRT ( U. S. ATTORNEY-GENERAL UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS): Manager of the American Sunday School Union; Vice-President of the American Bible Society.

THOMAS WORTHINGTON (GOVERNOR OF OHIO; U. S. SENATOR): Original Officer of the American Bible Society.

---

After seeing a list like this it is no wonder the advocates for a Christian-less founding would be so sparse in their selection of quotation.  The list above of the positions held in private affairs by the Founding Fathers helps shed light on their Christian beliefs.  Bible Societies were responsible for printing and distributing bibles, a pretty unusual affiliation for a atheist. 

Just among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists, Franklin, Williamson, and Wilson.  How do we know this?  The people of the time of the founding era kept records, everything was documented.  However, unlike today, one did not simply belong to a church like we do today where you come and go as your personal tastes direct.  In the founding era, you were required to take a sworn oath to believe and uphold the doctrines and theology of the church to which you belonged.

Unfortunately even quotes attributed to Jefferson and Adams are taken out of context, either that or explicit statements such as:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. (John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813)

means Adams was simply revising the current state of affairs of the nation, and had no idea what was going on around him.

Far much more can be said and quoted in support of the Founding Fathers and the Christian influence and foundation of America, but neither time or space allows. There will always be those nay sayers who care not what the actual representative beliefs of the foundation are, and will always fall back on the few out-of-context and misrepresented phrases and quotes.

---

1. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp
2. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ga02.asp
3. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma02.asp
4. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp
5. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
6. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp
7. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ct03.asp
8. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de01.asp
9. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma01.asp
10. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mass01.asp
11. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri04.asp
12. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va01.asp
13. avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mayflower.asp
14. Rush, Letters, Vol. II, p. 799, to Noah Webster on July 20, 1798
15. Edwards Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1886), pp. 141-142
16. Jared Sparks, The Life of Governeur Morris (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1832), Vol. III, p. 483, from his “Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.”
17. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 8, “On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic.”; Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 294, to John Armstrong on March 19,1783; see also James Henry Morgan, Dickinson College: The History of One Hundred and Fifty Years 1783-1933 (Carlisle, PA: Dickinson College, 1933), p. 11
18. Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”
19. Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XVI, p. 291, to Captain John Thomas on November 18, 1801
20. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 475, to Elias Boudinot on July 9, 1788
21. Rush, Letters, Vol. 1, p. 521, to Jeremy Belknap on July 13, 1789; Benjamin Rush, Essays, pp. 94, 100, "A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book."
22. Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809), pp. 134-135
23. John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.
    John Adams, Works, Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.
24. John Jay, John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, Richard B. Morris, editor (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), Vol. II, p. 709, to Peter Augustus Jay on April 8, 1784
25. Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland (Baltimore: Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14
26. Rush, Letters, Vol. II, pp. 820-821, to Thomas Jefferson on August 22, 1800
27. Jared Sparks, Lives of William Pinkney, William Ellery, and Cotton Mather (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1860), from The Library of American Biography, Vol. VI, pp. 138-139
28. Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvaina (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 22
29. Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31; see also W. P. Strickland, History of theAmerican Bible Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), p. 18
30. Witherspoon, Works (1815), Vol. VIII, pp. 33, 38, “On the Truth of the Christian Religion,” Lecture IV
31. K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829
32. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland (Baltimore: Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14
33. John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), Vol. I, p. 111
34. John Adams, Works, Vol. IX, p. 229, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798
35. John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), p. 28
36. Story, Familiar Exposition, p. 260, §442
37. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. III, pp. 722-723, § 1865
    Story, Commentaries, Vol. III, p. 727, § 1869
38. Story, Commentaries, Vol. III, p. 728, §1871

Don't even think about it!

Hate crime laws since their inception have always been a controversial topic hotly debated by all sides of the discussion.  Recent issues such as the ruling on California's Constitutional Amendment Prop 8, overturning the voters of California who voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman; or the proposed "Park 51" project (formerly known as the "Cordoba House" project) building an Islamic Community Center and Mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site, fuel the discussion further by introducing the idea that opposition to the Mosque or court ruling is based on hate, bigotry, and intolerance.  Some fear that those in opposition will verbally or physically attack Muslims or proponents of same sex marriage, justifying the need all along for hate crimes legislation.

That is the question at hand: are hate crimes laws a justified necessity, or simply an attempt (intentional or accidental) to elevate the value of certain people groups by offering greater protection under the law by punishing more harshly anyone who would commit crimes against them allegedly due to their protected status.  Crimes deemed to qualify as hate crimes under state statutes receive greater penalties than the same crimes which do not qualify as hate crimes.  For example, a man randomly assaulted by another would not be punished as harshly as a man assaulted due to his race.  This is the issue which creates the debate as to whether certain citizens are considered more valuable than others.  It would not seem that the intent of the government would be to consider some individuals of more value, but in practice that appears to be the end result.

Most criminal laws are enacted for two reasons, prevention and protection.  The laws are in place to protect the people from acts of violence, fraud, harassment, etc.  They explain and define the behaviors society has rejected as inappropriate and unacceptable.  The penalties are set (in theory) both to punish appropriately and in proportion to the offense, and to deter potential offenders from committing the crimes in the first place.

On what basis do we as a society determine if there is a need for this special protection?  Are there an exorbitant amount of these hate crimes being committed which require special attention?  Understand that I agree that any violent crimes or hate crimes are unacceptable, the point being, is hate crime an epidemic?  The table below is a summary of violent crimes and hate crimes by year in relation to each other and over all population:

---

Year	Violent Crimes	Hate Crime Incidents	%	Victims	Population*
2008	1,382,012	7783	0.6	9691	304
2007	1,408,337	7624	0.5	9535	301.6
2006	1,418,043	7722	0.5	9652	299.4
2005	1,390,745	7163	0.5	8804	296.5
2004	1,360,088	7649	0.6	9528	293.7
2003	1,383,676	7489	0.5	9100	290.8
2002	1,423,677	7462	0.5	9222	289

*In Millions (1)

---

Every violent crime is a tragedy, especially hate crimes. However, the number of overall violent crimes which are hate crimes is incredibly minute. Up to six tenths of one percent (.6 of 1%) is hardly an epidemic. If you read the news these figures are likely a shock, they were to me. We are led to believe that hate crime is out of control, but according to the data collected by the FBI, the number of hate crimes is barely visible. It can't be the number of hate crimes driving the social desire for the legislation.

So what could be the driving force behind the laws? People are already protected by laws against violence. All states prohibit acts of harassment, threat, and violence. If the penalties for these crimes are inadequate, they should be revised accordingly. So protection is not the goal. What about prevention? According to the stats, though the numbers of hate crimes remains relatively unchanged, when you take into consideration the rise in population, approximately 15 million people since 2002, the percentages of crimes to total population decrease. Despite what the media portrays, hate crimes are not on the rise. It would seem they are as prevented as they can be. As we all know, if someone desperately wants to commit a crime, the law will be no deterrent.

In my opinion, the push for hate crime laws, and stronger hate crime laws are a result of politics and politicians pandering to advocacy groups. Hate crime laws do not seem to be driven by the same motivation as other laws. For one thing, the victim of the crime is already protected by the existing laws. What is added is making the same act of violence or intimidation against an individual a crime against a group of similar people due to your motivation in committing the crime against the individual. According to our Constitution, individuals have rights, not groups. Each person is dealt with on an individual basis, and should be. Criminalizing actions against an individual is one thing, but then applying additional punishment due the individual's real or perceived democraphical status informs society the government believes Person A is worthy of greater protection than Person B. I do not believe a crime against an individual also transfers to a group of people who were not involved.

People who commit violent crimes belong in jail, but to additionally criminalize their thoughts in addition to their actions is a step too far. The guy who beats and robs me will go to jail, and rightly so. I do not see what it matters if he did it because of the color of my skin, or a certain belief I hold, I'm beat up either way. Hate crime laws are akin to legislating "You can't think that!", an idea I consider wholly unamerican.

---

1) www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Laying Down the Law

Is the Christian is required to keep the Law, more specifically the ten commandments?  It is my position that, no, Christians are under no obligation to keep the Law of the old testament.  On its face this is  a controversial notion, but hopefully upon closer examination it should be clear and will make sense, and I believe it is in fact the biblical position.

When discussing the Law I will limit the scope to the ten commandments since it was God who commanded the ten as well as the other 600+ laws, which were established to set Israel apart as a peculiar people, and unless a specific distinction must be made the Law refers to the ten.

God chose Abram from among the people of the earth to bless, and from his descendants God would make a great nation (Gen. 12:2).  Through Jacob, Abram's (now Abraham) son who is now called Israel (Gen. 32:28) God made what was to come to be known as the Nation of Israel.  Israel as a nation was a people chosen by God to be His people.  They were a people set apart from the surrounding peoples and nations, which were notoriously depraved, committing regularly heinous acts upon themselves and others (Gen. 6:5).  God had a specific purpose for the nation of Israel, the Messiah was to be an Israelite.  To keep Israel apart from the other surrounding nations God gave certain commandments to the nation of Israel (Exo. 20:2) in order to keep them morally sound and to keep them from falling into the same treachery as their neighbors.  The reason this is pertinent to this discussion is that the Law was given to Israel, specifically Israel.  The reason this is important is that there are promises and consequences related to obedience and disobedience to the Law. 

The Law is basically a contract with the nation of Israel.  This contract like any other contract is valid and applicable only to the parties to whom the contract is given.  I think Christians have a tendency to view new testament Christians as a continuation of or a replacement to old testament Israelites, and are therefore entitled to the promises offered to the Jews.   Unless otherwise stated, promises and Laws to the Jews apply only to the Jews.  Even Paul makes the point of making the distinction that the Gentiles, did not have the Law but did the things of the Law since it was written on their hearts (Rom. 2:12-14).

Is the Christian church a continuation of or replacement to the Jews? I'm not so certain this is the case, and even if it were would not be relevant or make the argument for required obedience to the Law.  First there is an explicit separation of Israel and Christians. In Matthew chapter 16, Jesus and Peter are discussing who Jesus is.  Jesus asks "who do the people say I am?" (Matt. 16:13), and then "who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15).  Peter of course gives the correct answer, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).  Jesus then responds by saying that God has revealed that truth and on that truth He, Jesus, will build His church.  I think this is an important way of wording the answer, namely in the future tense.  Jesus had not yet been crucified and resurrected which would be the event which ushers in the new covenant.  The church Jesus is speaking of is not yet in place, however Judaism and the Law were currently in place.  There is no mention by Jesus that the church is the same as the set aside nation Israel, though the first Christians were converted Jews.  There is a distinction between the church which is to come, and the "church" which is present.

God's plan was to bring about a new covenant which would be different from the original (Heb. 8:9), or old covenant, (Jer. 31:31, 32) which was broken by Israel.  It would function in a new way.  The old covenant was a written law, the new would be written on the hearts of believers (Heb 8:10).  I take this to mean one's conscience.  I firmly believe a believer's conscience does more to convict of sin then any written set of rules ever could.  I take this notion of the Law being written on the heart to mean that before the new covenant was in place, the conscience was either non-existent, or radically different from what we experience today.  I think most believers can attest to this, before becoming a believer you were a pretty good person, me too, but after you believed you are more sensitive to the little things you used to do with out a second thought.  Even the unbeliever's conscience informs them when they do wrong, and while everyone has an innate knowledge of God, it is suppressed and the source for their conscience informing them of wrong is purposely unknown (Rom. 1:21-23, Heb. 8:11).  But the unbeliever's conscience is not informative to the extent of the believer who has the benefit of the Holy Spirit who makes the believer more sensitive to sin.  History can also attest to this. Before Christ came, life was very cheap and debauchery was rampant. People were slaughtered whole sale for any number of reasons including entertainment. Since the Advent, it has tapered off, people are looked upon with more value and debauchery was increasingly frowned upon as Christianity spread through out the world. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but reading through the old testament we see how depraved the peoples were that surrounded the Jews. So bad so that it showed no signs of stopping and as a result God ordered their extermination (Gen. 6:5).

Jesus, God Himself, would be the one to usher in the new covenant (Isa. 53:11-12; Psa. 22:25-29; Zech. 12:10; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).  Once the new is in place, the old is done away with and obsolete (Heb. 8:13, 2 Cor. 3:6).  This means is it done with, there is no more obligation to fulfill the Law (Rom. 7:6).  There was even some debate in the early church, that some new believers had claimed it was necessary to keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5), and a letter was written in response claiming they, the Apostles, gave no such instruction (Acts 15:24), and advising they not be burdened beyond the essentials of abstaining from "things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell" (Acts 15:29).  In fact, the Apostles questioned speaking of the Law of Moses, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10).  Certainly if obliged obedience to the Law was intended for the Christian church it would have been upheld here. Now that the new covenant is in place, not even the Jews, with whom God made the original covenant, are under the obligation to fulfil the Law.  Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly by not once violating the Law (Heb. 7:27), and made the required sacrifice once and for all.

Now some might take exception with this line of reasoning thinking I am advocating or defending the idea of "carnal Christianity", not being obliged to the law means free reign to live a life of sin.  Once a person has truly been regenerated becoming a believer, there is a desire to refrain from the life of sin to which he was once accustomed.  By this I do not mean Christians do not sin, but the Christian is inwardly convicted of the sin he once abounded.  The sensitivity to sin increases with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and though the Christian may sin, he does not want to, feels remorse when he does, and has a desire to repent (Rom. 7:15-21).  The Law then is kept accidentally.  It is kept out of love and thankfulness to God for His redemption.  Keeping the Law begins to come naturally, though not perfectly, after being born again.  Jesus himself says "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).  Jesus here is saying, if you are someone who loves Him, you will keep the commandments.  This is a descriptive verse not prescriptive.  Jesus is not saying that those who claim to love Him must keep His commandments, but rather that the people who do in fact love Him will keep them.

What about Matthew 5:17-18, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."?  In this passage is Jesus teaching the Law is in effect and will never pass away?  It is true He did not come to destroy the law, which He did not, the Law was not abolished, it was completed.  Before the crucifixion/resurrection the Law was still in effect and required to be obeyed by the Jews.  Jesus was under the obligation to obey the law Himself (Gal. 4:4), which He did to perfection. Jesus' perfect keeping of the Law, His being crucified for the sins of man, and His resurrection from the dead conquering the effects of sin is the "until all is accomplished" to which He is referring, remember His words on the Cross "it is finished" (John 19:30).  The Greek word used in the passage, "tetelestai" is a word used in the first century to indicate that a contractual obligation has been fulfilled.  It was a release of the debtee to the debtor, the old covenant is now finished and the new is in effect.

I believe it is widely overlooked by Christians that many of Jesus' teachings, generally speaking, were to Jews.  Jesus was not sent to the whole world, but only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 15:24), therefore His message and His audience consisted mainly of Jews who were under the Law.  Before Jesus death and resurrection the old covenant, which was the required obedience of the Law, was still in place.  It is not until after His resurrection that the obligation is removed and abolished and the new covenant is under effect.  It is for this reason that a passage like Matthew 22:35-40, And of them, lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." is why it appears that Jesus is endorsing adherence to the Law.  Now there are a few ways of looking at this. First, Jesus is answering a question posed to Him by an individual. I would answer that question the same way Jesus did.  Just because Jesus answered the question that way, in that time, under that circumstance, does not mean it applies to us today. It was a Jewish man asking a Jewish teacher about the Jewish Law. One could ask me what the greatest traffic law is and I could give a similar answer. But traffic laws apply only to people who are driving. If I don’t drive, traffic laws don’t apply to me. Context is everything. Again pre-crucifixion/resurrection the Law was still in effect. The man inquiring of Jesus called Him "Teacher", which implies the man was a Jew, I do not think a gentile would seek Jesus for religious or theological teaching of the Jewish Law, and thus Jesus’ answer makes perfect sense when the context is taken into consideration.  See the parallel passage in Mark 12:28-33 where the man inquiring of Jesus references Deut. 6:4-5, further indicating it was in part a Jewish theological discussion.

The Christian is not obliged to keep the Law, but will out of love and conviction from the Holy Spirit.  In the same way I am not obligated to rub my wife's feet after a long day but will out of love for her; and she is not obligated to bake my favorite blue berry muffins for me, but out of love will.  Likewise the believer keeps the Law out of love for God not obligation.  The believer by being born again is given a new nature and is no longer a slave to sin.  Having this new nature, he does the things of the Law because it is written on his heart and out of the love for God.  It is not obedience to the Law I take umbrage with, after all not murdering and stealing are good things.  It is the imposed obligation on the part of some believers.  The Mosaic Law was a covenant made to a specific group of people, the descendants of Abraham, for a specific purpose.  Now that a new covenant is in place, the old is obsolete and done away with, and even the Jews are under no obligation to it.  Context is the key to understanding the promises of the bible, carefully reading the surrounding passages of a given text will help you to understand the theology of the bible.

Prop 8 Struck Down

The issue of same sex marriage is a hotly debated emotional topic.  I believe that is one of the main points of contention, namely that it is an emotional topic.  It can often be difficult to argue one way or another for a point of view when your emotions are so involved.  This does not mean you cannot make a reasonable case for your point of view.  Aside from the political aspects of this decision, it's social ramifications are also great.  Some will see this as a political victory, others as judicial activism. But is there good reason to restrict marriage to one man and one woman?

First I will address some of the common arguments proponents in favor of same sex marriage and the reasons I believe these arguments fail.  Then I will cite information people are very rarely exposed to.  This information though readily publicly available is systematically ignored for what I believe are political reasons.  I am under no illusions that my view is socially unpopular, and accordingly will be labeled with cruel names by people who regularly champion tolerance.  It is my experience arguments in favor of traditional marriage are wholly ignored by those proponents of same sex marriage.  The introductory paragraph or two is read then the information is not addressed, and in place of rebutting the arguments, slogans are offered. 

I am fully aware my next statement will at first not sound quite right, but after you hear me through I think you will begrudgingly have to agree.  Even with same sex marriage banned, everyone has the same rights and restrictions, regardless of any demographic differences.  This is a fact, let me explain.  Everyone has the right to marry any person of the opposite sex, who is of proper age, and who is free to marry.  This is as true for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.  The main point of contention here is the claim I can marry anyone I want to as a heterosexual, a freedom the homosexual claims is not granted to him.  But I also cannot marry anyone wish.  I may not marry a friend, who is also a man for tax, health care, and property purposes, or for love for that matter.  If I wanted to marry a close relation (as defined by my state) I am restricted from marrying that person as well.  What is being asked for is the state (or federal government) to take an interest in my sexual attraction and emotional commitment to the person I wish to marry.  As it stands currently, my marriage licence application did not have a section asking if I am attracted to or am in love with my perspective wife.  Nor should they.  Even though love is a factor for marriage, it isn't the only factor.

If the government should be promoting relationships, which it does through tax breaks and such, then it ought to be promoting the healthiest relationships.  Fidelity is a big part to sustaining a healthy relationship.  While among heterosexual relationships studies show that that 75-81% of married men and 85-88% of married women had never broken their marriage vows (1).

However studies also confirm that fidelity among homosexual males is dismal in comparison.  Studies have repeatedly shown 43% of white homosexual men had sex with at least 500 partners and 28% had sex with at least 1000 partners (2). The Journal of Sex Research reported most homosexuals have between 100 and 500 sexual partners within their lifetime. 10.2%  had between 501 and 1,000 sex partners, 15.7% had more than 1000 sex partners within their lifetime (3). Studies conducted by pro-homosexual groups corroborated these findings, 24% of those homosexuals surveyed admitted having had more than 100 sex partners in their lifetime. And many of those had more than 1000 sex partners (4).

According to Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam”, AIDS 17, 2003, homosexuals considering themselves monogamous admitted to having up to eight additional partners per year. Other studies confirm this phenomenon: Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows”, Washington Blade, August 22, 2003; David H. Demo, et al., editors, “Handbook of Family Diversity”, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984.  One report showed that only 2.7% of homosexual men had only one partner during their life time, (5).

 

Monogamy among homosexual male couples is virtually non-existent.  It is the exception, not the rule.  Putting aside the monogamy of same sex couples, what about the duration of the relationship itself.  The commitment to the partner regardless of extra-relational partners.  The facts on the duration of the relationships fare no better.  A study conducted in 2001 revealed 66% of first marriages last ten years or more, and 50% last twenty years or longer, (6). Another study in 2002 discovered 70.7% of women married between 1970 and 1974 stayed married for at least 10 years, 57.7% stayed married for at least 20 years (7).

 

A study done not long ago, a 2003/2004 survey of homosexual lifestyles by a homosexual organization no less, reported 15% of same sex relationships lasted longer than 12 years and only 5% of those lasted longer than 20 years (8). Homosexual men exceedingly less likely to be in monogamous long term relationships, in fact the average length of a homosexual partnership is approximately 1.5 years (9).

 

Without going into the health issues associated with homosexual behavior which far out proportion their heterosexual counter parts. Stats for which can be found easily at the Center for Disease Control website.  A site which can be considered unbiased. We see based on relationship factors, same sex relationships are not on par with heterosexual relationships. For the state to endorse homosexual relationships as equal to and appropriate for state motivation is unfounded by the evidence and is done so strictly for political appeal.

---

1) Michael W. Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997; E. O. Laumann et al., “The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; and “Sexual Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring”, PR Newswire, August 4, 1994

2) A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978, pp. 308, 309; and A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, “Sexual Preference”, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981

3) Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997

4) “Sex Survey Results”, Genre, October 1996, as quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners”, Lambda Report, January 1998

5) Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile”, The Journal of Sex Research, Volume 34, 1997

6) Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics - May 31, 2001

7) Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996" Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. February 2002

8) “Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships,” GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, http://www.glcensus.org/

9) Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 - 2003