Tuesday, September 6, 2016

God, the Founders, and the Purpose of Human Government

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.  Apologetics Press

The American people have been experiencing a significant level of confusion regarding the purpose of civil government. Perhaps the prevailing sentiment of the population is that the core purpose of government is to collect money from citizens (via the IRS) so that elected politicians can make decisions regarding the distribution and dispersal of those funds. This serious misconception has led to a plethora of errors and harmful societal circumstances: a bloated, insatiable federal government that is in the throes of unprecedented, debilitating debt, a corresponding failure of elected officials to focus on their true purpose, a host of citizens who think the government exists to redistribute monetary assistance to them, and the list goes on. Meanwhile, the central purpose of government—the very reason the Founders established a federal government—is being neglected to the extent that citizens are encountering increasing danger to their lives. Perhaps even more tragic, the very government intended to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has assumed an adversarial role in which it persecutes those who hesitate to go along with its oppressive socialistic, anti-Christian, “politically correct” agenda.
What’s more, many Americans have been indoctrinated in the public school system with the idea that “separation of church and state” is true, that the government should have nothing to do with religion—except to suppress it in government, school, and public life.1 This indoctrination is so thorough and pervasive that few consider the fact that God has expressed His view on the subject. Indeed, the sole source of infallibly correct thinking—the Bible—addresses these concerns, articulating very precisely the divine purpose of civil government. What does the inspired Word of God say regarding the purpose of human government?

THE BIBLE

Perhaps before answering that question, we should ask the prior question: “Did God intend for humans to form a government?” Yes, He did. The Bible states definitively: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Romans 13:1, emp. added). Another inspired apostle stated: “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him” (1 Peter 2:13-14). Jesus, Himself, had previously expressed what His apostles later wrote. He implied the validity of human government when He declared: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream included the realization “that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the lowest of men” (Daniel 4:17). So, yes, human government is authorized and ordained by God and fully in keeping with His principle of authority that pervades all of life.2
What, then, does the Bible say about the purpose of the divinely authorized entity of human government? The Bible states explicitly that the central purpose and role of government is to maintain order, peace, protection, safety, and stability in society which, in turn, enables citizens to live their lives in freedom. Consider, for example, Paul’s lengthy discussion of civil government in his admonitions to Christians in the capital city—the heart—of the Roman Empire:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil (Romans 13:3-4, emp. added).
Observe: “a terror to evil works” (vs. 3) and “an avenger to execute wrath on him who does evil” (vs. 4). Peter expressed these same thoughts when he also addressed the subject:
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by himfor the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (1 Peter 2:13-14, emp. added).
Observe:“for the punishment of evildoers” and “praise of those who do good” (vs. 14). Commenting on this passage, Guy N. Woods remarked: “the design, incidentally, of all civil authority—was (a) to punish the wicked, and (b) encourage good works by protecting those engaged therein.”3 In his remarks to Timothy, Paul again noted this same purpose:
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (1 Timothy 2:1-2, emp. added).
Observe again: “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (i.e., protected from those who would disturb that peace). Even the pagan attorney Tertullus, who acted on behalf of the high priest in bringing formal charges against Paul before the Roman governor Felix, noted in passing the purpose of civil government:
And when he was called upon, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: “Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight, we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness” (Acts 24:2-3, emp. added).
Observe: through the civil magistrate, i.e., the government, “we enjoy great peace, and prosperity,” i.e., we are protected from those who would disrupt the peace, enabling us freely to exercise our right to pursue our vocations and the prosperity such brings. The government does not guarantee, let alone provide, prosperity; it simply ensures a peaceful atmosphere in which citizens can pursue their vocations and earn their living unhampered by thugs, thieves, and other criminals.
Hence, while not discounting subsidiary functions, the Bible states very succinctly that the essential thrust of human government—its core function—is to maintain order, peace, protection, safety, and stability in society so that citizens may be permitted to live their own lives and have the freedom to make their own decisions. This arrangement is God’s will. However, recall again Paul’s words to Timothy:
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (1 Timothy 2:1-2, emp. added).
Why should we pray for the government? So that our lives might be “quiet and peaceable”—the objective and purpose of the government as intended by God. But what is the purpose of having a peaceful, undisturbed, unmolested life? So that we might live life “in all godliness and reverence.” God wants people to make wise, spiritual decisions as they live their lives in anticipation of eternity. That is their purpose for existence (Ecclesiastes 12:13). But whether they do or don’t, civil government is divinely designed to create an environment where citizens are not molested by internal or external assailants.

AMERICA’S FOUNDERS

Every American ought to be grateful to live in a country where its Founding Fathers understood God’s view of human government and, consequently, implemented that same view in their efforts to establish the Republic. They were very forthright in their expression of the purpose of government and what they envisioned were the enumerated sub-purposes. Hear them:
Though not an American Founder, the British empiricist philosopher and physician John Locke (1632-1704), widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers, exerted a considerable influence on the thinking of the Founders. They certainly agreed with his assessment of the purpose of human government: “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property,” with “property” defined as “their lives, Liberties and estates.”4 Another Englishman with whom the Founders agreed on this point was British jurist, judge, and politician of the Founding Era Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), most noted for his Commentaries on the Laws of England which profoundly influenced the Founders and the formation of American law.5 He explained: “For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.”6
Apart from these weighty influences, the Founders themselves expressed pointed views of the purpose of government. In a sermon preached in Cambridge before the Massachusetts House of Representatives on May 30, 1770, prominent New England preacher Samuel Cooke pinpointed the true intention of government: “Civil government…the sole end and design of which is…the public benefit, the good of the people; that they may be protected in their persons, and secured in the enjoyment of all their rights, and to be enabled to lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.”7 Five years later, on May 31, 1775, a month after the commencement of the Revolutionary War, Harvard College President Samuel Langdon delivered a sermon to the Massachusetts Congress titled “Government Corrupted by Vice, and Recovered by Righteousness.” Distinguished scholar, theologian, and charter member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and delegate to the New Hampshire convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution, he, too, understood the central role of government:
Thanks be to God that he has given us, as men, natural rights, independent of all human laws whatever…. By thelaw of nature, any body of people, destitute of order and government, may form themselves into a civil society, according to their best prudence, and so provide for their common safety and advantage.8
On July 6, 1775, one year before declaring independence, the Continental Congress issued a declaration articulating precisely why they felt compelled to take up arms against their mother country. Obviously, they felt the government had gone awry (notice the extent to which they connect the purpose of government with God’s will on the matter):
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the Inhabitants of these Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.9
In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it—for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms.10
The Founding Fathers, en masse, believed that the role of government was to protect its citizens.

John Jay
John Jay was a brilliant Founder with a long and distinguished career in the formation and shaping of American civilization from the beginning. He not only was a member of the Continental Congress from 1774-1776, serving as its President from 1778-1779, he also helped to frame the New York State Constitution and then served as the Chief Justice of the New York State Supreme Court. He co-authored theFederalist Papers, was appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington, served as Governor of New York, and was the vice-president of the American Bible Society from 1816 to 1821. Here was his description of the purpose of government:
[W]ickedness rendered human government necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it. To facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race became, in the course of Providence, divided into separate and distinct nations. Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions. Each government provided for the internal peace and security of the nation, by laws for punishing their offending subjects. The law of all the nations prescribed the conduct which they were to observe towards each other, and allowed war to be waged by an innocent against an offending nation, when rendered just and necessary by unprovoked, atrocious, and unredressed injuries.11
Jay insightfully observed that God instituted human government in order to enact a restraining influence on the propensity of human beings to harm each other.
Alexander Hamilton was another prominent Founder, serving as an artillery Captain and Lieutenant-Colonel/Aide-de-camp to General Washington in the Revolutionary War. He was a member of the Continental Congress, a signer of the U.S. Constitution, co-author of the Federalist Papers, and Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington. In The Federalist, No. 15, dated December 1, 1787, Hamilton asked: “Why has government been instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”12 Government is intended to constrain lawbreakers.
Another patriot preacher of the Founding era was Samuel West, who served as a chaplain during the Revolutionary War and was an influential member of the Convention that formed the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, and also of the Convention for the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In an election-day sermon preached before the Massachusetts House of Representatives on May 29, 1776, sometimes titled “On the Right to Rebel against Governors,” West noted the role of government:
Men of unbridled lusts, were they not restrained by the power of the civil magistrate, would spread horror and desolation all around them. This makes it absolutely necessary that societies should form themselves into politic bodies, that they may enact laws for the public safety, and appoint particular penalties for the violation of their laws, and invest a suitable number of persons with authority to put in execution and enforce the laws of the state, in order that wicked men may be restrained from doing mischief to their fellow-creatures, that the injured may have their rights restored to them, that the virtuous may be encouraged in doing good, and that every member of society may be protected and secured in the peaceable, quiet possession and enjoyment of all those liberties and privileges which the Deity has bestowed upon him, i.e., that he may safely enjoy and pursue whatever he chooses, that is consistent with the public good. This shows that the end and design of civil government cannot be to deprive man of their liberty or take away their freedom; but, on the contrary, the true design of civil government is to protect men in the enjoyment of liberty.13
Constitution signer, co-author of the Federalist Papers, and fourth U.S. President, James Madison, in a speech at the Virginia Convention in 1829, stated: “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.”14 Quintessential Founder Thomas Jefferson pinpointed this same function of government in his second presidential inaugural address, likewise linking God and religion to its purpose:
Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.… entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.15
Declaration signer Samuel Adams, considered the “Firebrand of the Revolution” and “The Father of the American Revolution,” was vociferous in his pronouncements of the proper role of the government. In his monumental “Rights of the Colonists,” he explained:
Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence…. [T]he grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.16
Writing in the Boston-Gazette on Monday, December 19, 1768 under the pseudonym “Vindex,” Adams expounded that “the only true basis of all government [are] the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of Heaven, design’d by the all-benevolent Creator, for the general happiness of his rational creature, man.”17 Alluding to the “fundamental principle of nature and the constitution, that what is a man’s own, isabsolutely his own, and that no man can have a right to take it from him without his consent,” Adams maintained:
It is against the plain and obvious rule of equity, whereby the industrious man is intitled [sic] to the fruits of his industry: It weakens the best cement of society, as it renders all property precarious: And it destroys the very end for which alone men can be supposed to submit to civil government; which is not for the sake of exalting one man, or a few men, above their equals, that they may be maintained in splendor and greatness; but that each individual, under the joint protection of the whole community, may be the Lord of his own possession, and sit securely under his own vine.18
So to Adams, the purpose for a community of people to form a government is to create “joint protection” for all citizens as each exerts his own efforts to prosper. Adams’ allusion to each person being enabled to sit under his own vine is taken from the Old Testament prophet Micah (4:4). That same year, in a letter sent by the Massachusetts House of Representatives to their agent in London, Dennis DeBerdt, the purpose of government is identified in the words: “The security of right and property is the great end of government.”19
As tensions increased between the Americans and Britain, the First Provincial Congress of Massachusetts issued a letter to newly appointed British military Governor Lieutenant General Thomas Gage, appealing to him to cease and desist from the hostile preparations being made, which included the construction of military fortifications at the entrance to Boston. The letter, dated Thursday, October 13, 1774, contains a reminder of the proper purpose of government:
Your excellency must be sensible that the sole end of government is the protection and security of the people. Whenever, therefore, that power, which was originally instituted to effect these important and valuable purposes, is employed to harass, distress, or enslave the people, in this case it becomes a curse rather than a blessing.20
In “A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments,” Thomas Jefferson offered a further description of the purpose of human government:
Whereas, it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men, resigning themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties, and property of others, and, the secure enjoyment of these having principally induced men to enter into society, government would be defective inits principal purpose, were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them.21
Prominent Founder John Adams stated the purpose succinctly in these words: “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.”22 The state constitution of Massachusetts, believed to be largely the work of Adams, provides a more extensive definition of the purpose of government in its Preamble:
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.23
Though Thomas Paine fell into disrepute in the 1790s all across America when he publishedThe Age of Reason, nevertheless, he was a significant Founder at the beginning. His wording of the purpose of government was given in his treatise The Rights of Man for the Use and Benefit of All Mankind:
Government is nothing more than a national association; and the object of this association is, the good of all, as well individually, as collectively. Every man wishes to pursue his occupation, and to enjoy the fruits of his labours, and the produce of his property, in peace and safety, and with the least possible expence. When these things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be established, are answered.24
Another Founding era preacher, Dan Foster of Connecticut, articulated the same sentiment in his “A Short Essay on Civil Government:”
For ‘tis for the good of the state and people, that every one and the whole community, may enjoy their persons and properties free of all molestations, invasions, rapines and invasions whatsoever, that civil government is erected; and these great ends must be kept in sight and direct…. Our proposition asserts that the people have a natural and inherent right to appoint and constitute a [government] over them, for their civil good, liberty, protection, peace and safety…. to defend and secure to the people the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of their persons and properties.25
Harvard graduate and Founding era preacher from Duxbury, Massachusetts, Charles Turner, delivered an election sermon before the Massachusetts-Bay government in 1773, declaring:
God would have His civil ministers to prove, a terror to evil works; to punish evil doers—by salutary laws, honestly and honorably executed, to save the state from foreign injurious invaders…and to prevent the peoples suffering, from one another, as to life, property, or any of their rights.26
These citations could be multiplied extensively. They may be summarized in the words of the Declaration of Independencewhich the Founders crafted to articulate clearly the infringements of the British government under which they lived:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.27

CONCLUSION

It’s as if rank and file Americans at the inception of the nation were widely educated in the principles of government and were attuned to the essentiality of government fulfilling its God-assigned responsibilities. Make no mistake: the freedom which they believed was endangered by the usurpations of the British government was not the 1960s “do your own thing” “freedom” which promoted the overthrow of the prevailing social mores in America. Far from it. They would have viewed such “freedom” to be licentiousness and immoral. Rather, they envisioned the freedom that they considered inherent in the creation of human beings by God—the unalienable right to live on the Earth in order to make one’s own choices in anticipation of eternity.
When the government loses sight of the function for which it was created, citizens are hampered in their efforts to achieve the purpose for which they were created: to obey God. Tragically, more than ever before in its 230 year history, America is experiencing severe convulsion due to the distortion of the role of government that prevails on virtually every level—local, state, and federal. Government has assumed a measure of control over the lives of its citizens that it has no right to exert, exceeding the limits envisioned by both God and the Founders. Citizens are being threatened, bullied, harassed, and intimidated by government to accept a redefinition of marriage and to embrace gender confusion as normal. They are being pressured to ignore the threat to national security posed by the blanket acceptance of foreigners who disdain the religion of Christ and the values upon which the Republic was built.28 The government has placed Americans under severe, nonconsensual financial burdens.29
It is bad enough that the government has ventured into illicit areas of activity. But, in the meantime, it has neglected, if not forsaken, its central purpose of providing adequate security for its law-abiding citizens. Is it coincidental that prisons are full while the government wages war on religious expression? Ask yourself these questions: Do I feel safer or less safe than at any other time in my life? Do I feel that my life and my property (i.e., home and possessions) are more secure or less secure? In my attempt to live a peaceful, serene, undisturbed lifestyle, do I feel the government is a friend and ally, or is it hostile and part of the problem?
The time has come for the nation to return to its moorings. The time has come for a massive spiritual and moral awakening, lest God say to America what He said to Israel of old: “‘Shall I not punish them for these things?’ says the LORD. ‘And shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?’” (Jeremiah 5:9,29; 9:9).

ENDNOTES

1 See the DVD Separation of Church and State? available at:http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=106.
2 For a discussion of the crucial principle of authority, see Dave Miller (2012), Surrendering to His Lordship (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
3 Guy N. Woods (1962), A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 72.
4 John Locke (1821), Two Treatises of Government (London: Whitmore & Fenn), Book II, Chapter IX, p. 295.
5 Thomas Jefferson noted that the standing sentiment of American lawyers was that “Blackstone is to us what the Alcoran is to the Mahometans”—“Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, May 26, 1810,” The Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress,”http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib020310.
6 Sir William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press), Book I, Chapter I, 1:120, emp. added.
7 Samuel Cooke (1770), The True Principles of Civil Government, A Sermon Preached at Cambridge, in the Audience of His Honor Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Lieutenant-Governor and Commander in Chief; The Honorable His Majesty’s Council, and the Honorable House of Representatives, of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England, May 30th, 1770(Boston, MA: Edes and Gill), p. 159, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N09097.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
8 Samuel Langdon (1775), Government Corrupted by Vice, and Recovered by Righteousness(Watertown, MA: Benjamin Edes), p. 23, italics in orig., emp. added.
9 Continental Congress (1775), A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North America, Now Met in General Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, 2:140,156, emp. added, http://goo.gl/OrJ371.
10 Ibid., emp. added.
11 William Jay (1833), The Life of John Jay (New York: J.&J. Harper), 2:393-394, emp. added.
12 Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison (1911), The Federalist or the New Constitution (New York: E.P. Dutton), pp. 71-72, emp. added.
13 Samuel West (1776), A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council, and the Honorable House of Representatives, of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay, in New-EnglandMay 29, 1776. Being the Anniversary for the Election of the Honorable Council for the Colony(Boston, MA: John Gill), pp. 13-14, emp. added.
14 Ritchie and Cook, eds. (1830), Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829-30 (Richmond, VA: Samuel Shepherd), p. 537, emp. added.
15 Thomas Jefferson (1801), “First Inaugural Address,” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, emp. added,http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp.
16 William Wells (1866), The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.), 1:504, emp. added.
17 The Boston-Gazette, and Country Journal (1768), No. 716, Monday, December 19, 1768, p. 1.
18 Ibid., italics in orig., emp. added.
19 The Boston-Gazette, and Country Journal (1768), No. 679, Monday, April 4, p. 1, emp. added.
20 William Lincoln, ed. (1838), The Journals of each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 1775, and of the Committee of Safety (Boston, MA: Dutton and Wentworth), p. 17.
21 Thomas Jefferson (1853), “A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments,” in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H.A. Washington (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury), 1:147, emp. added.
22 John Adams (1805), Discourses on Davila (Boston, MA: Russell and Cutler), p. 92.
23 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Preamble,” emp. added,https://malegislature.gov/laws/constitution.
24 Thomas Paine (1795), The Rights of Man for the Use and Benefit of All Mankind (London: Daniel Isaac Eaton), p. 97, emp. added.
25 Dan Foster (1775), A Short Essay on Civil Government (Hartford, CT: Ebenezer Watson), pp. 14,27, emp. added.
26 Charles Turner (1773), A Sermon Preached Before His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Governor: The Honorable His Majesty’s Council, and the Honorable House of Representatives, of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England, May 26th. 1773(Boston, MA: Richard Draper), pp. 10-11, italics in orig., emp. added.
27 Declaration of Independence (1776), Library of Congress, emp. added,http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/pe.76546.
28 See Dave Miller (2016), “Should Christians Favor Accepting Syrian Refugees?” Reason & Revelation, 36[4]:45-47.
29 Writing ca. 1817, James Madison noted: “The people of the U. S. owe their Independence & their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprized [sic] in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings.” If the Founders were outraged over the violation of the principle underlying a three cent tax, they would be incredulous at the extent to which Americans tolerate oppressive governmental taxation without their knowledge—let alone consent (e.g., the tax on cell phone bills that funds free phone giveaways). See “Detached Memoranda,” The Founders’ Constitution, ed. Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press), Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 64, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html.
Copyright © 2016 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the “America’s Culture War” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.



What is True Islam? Western bewilderment at a Religious-Political-Military system


by William J. Federer

Muslim Terrorists Commit Attacks

Orlando massacre, Boston bombing, Paris bombing, Belgium train station bombing, beheading in Oklahoma, San Bernardino shootings, Fort Hood “workplace violence,” Boko Haram Nigerian kidnappings, Kenya mall killings, disfiguring acid attacks in Pakistan, Syrian genocide, ancient Iraqi churches and monasteries destroyed, the grave of the Prophet Jonah blown up, and more.
Apologist politicians are quick to assure us that these terrorist acts do not represent true Islam. Yet, in many cases, terrorists are yelling “Allahu Akbar” and claim they do represent true Islam. Who can tell us what true Islam is? One person — Mohammed.
Mohammed was the best Muslim that ever lived. His life is called the sunna, which means the way or the example. If we examine Mohammed’s life, we can better understand those trying to be like him. His life went through three stages: he was a RELIGIOUS leader, then a POLITICAL leader, then a MILITARY leader.

Religious

Mohammed began as a religious leader in 610 AD in the pagan city of Mecca, making only 70 converts in 12 years. When he became confrontational, the Meccans drove him out for disturbing the peace. He attempted to go to the city of al-Taif, but they pelted him with rocks. With nowhere to go, Mohammed was a Muslim refugee. In 622 AD, he fled 210 miles north to Medina, a city controlled by three Jewish tribes. They were tolerant and let Mohammed in as a Muslim immigrant.

Political

Mohammed went into Medina’s minority pagan neighborhood and began to organize the community, finding reception among those who had grievances with the Jewish controlled government. He then pressured the Jews to accommodate him and his followers politically. The Jews made a treaty with Mohammed, recognizing him as a political leader in addition to being a religious leader.

Military

Back in Mecca, Mohammed’s followers became confrontational. Considered disturbers of the peace, they were chased out. Now refugees, they traveled to Medina where the Jews let them in as Muslim immigrants. Mohammed allowed his followers to rob the trade caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation for the Meccans driving them out. This was a departure from the teachings of Jesus, who said: love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to those hate you; if they take your coat give them your shirt. Mohammed’s instructions were, in essence, if they take your house, you retaliate and take their caravan. Mohammed had 300 warriors who robbed caravans. He received a whole chapter of the Qur’an, Sura 8, on how to distribute booty from robbing caravans. He received a fifth of the booty.
In 624 AD, the pagans of Mecca sent a thousand soldiers to escort and protect theirMuhammad the Prophet spreads Islam by sword & murder caravans. Mohammed, with only 300 warriors, defeated them at the Battle of Badr. This amazing victory, having been outnumbered 3 to 1, convinced Mohammed to be a military leader. He fought in 66 battles and raids in the next eight years before he died, killing an estimated 3,000. He even used the catapult in his attack on the city of al-Taif. When he was told the catapult was hurling stones that were killing innocent women and children, Mohammed responded, “they are among them.” In other words, they got to be killed too.
Today’s suicide bombers and ISIS fighters think they are following Mohammed’s example: religiously, politically and militarily. The effort to split the religious side of Islam away from the political-military side is, in a sense, an effort to split Mohammed. There is freedom for all religions in America, but is Islam just a religion?
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, 1840: “Mohammed… put into the Koran not RELIGIOUS doctrines only, but POLITICAL maxims, CRIMINAL and CIVIL laws.” U.S. Minister to Spain Washington Irving wrote Lives Of Mahomet And His Successors (London: John Murry, 1850; New York: George P. Putnam, 1850; London: George Routledge, 1851; Philadelphia, 1873; Paris: Baudry’s European Library; A. & W. Galignani, University of California Libraries; Ipswich Press, 1993; Kessinger Publishing, 2008).
In Chapter 16, titled “The Sword Announced as the Instrument of Faith—First Foray Against the Koreishites—Surprisal of a Caravan,” Washington Irving wrote: “We come now to an important era in the career of Mohammed. Hitherto he had relied on argument and persuasion to make proselytes… His exhortations to them to bear with patience and long-suffering the violence of their enemies, almost emulated the meek precept of our Saviour, ‘if they smite thee on the one cheek, turn to them the other also.’
“He now arrived at a point where he completely diverge from the celestial spirit of the Christian doctrines… The means of retaliation unexpectedly sprung up within his reach. He had come to Medina a fugitive seeking an asylum… In a little while, and probably to his own surprise, he found an army at his command… The fugitives flocking to him from Mecca… were men of resolute spirit, skilled in the use of arms, and fond of partisan warfare… He endeavored to persuade himself… that the power thus placed within his reach was intended as a means of effecting his great purpose, and that he was called upon by divine command to use it.”

Military Genius

Mohammed turned out to be an extremely effective military leader, primarily because he was creative, unpredictable, and unconventional, not playing by the rules of traditional Arab warfare. For example, pagans in Arabia had one month off a year where they agreed not to fight–it was their pilgrimage month. They would set aside their differences and go to Mecca to worship the 360 gods kept in the square building called a Kaaba. Mohammed received verses to attack the caravans during this month, catching them by surprise and carrying away much booty.

Jesus vs. Mohammed

2898f-jesus-trial_999236_tmbSome may say, Muslims killed people, but so did Christians, but instead of comparing “followers,” the comparison must be made of “founders.” If one’s computer acts up, the owner reloads the software to the way it was left the factory store, if one’s religion acts up, we must look back to the example left by the founder. Let us compare Jesus and Mohammed, the founders of the two largest religions in the world, Christianity, around 33 percent; and Islam, around 22 percent.
JesusMohammed
Jesus never killed anyone.Mohammed killed an estimated 3,000 people.
Jesus never fought or led armies.Mohammed fought in 66 battles and raids, leading 27 of them.
Jesus never owned slaves.Mohammed owned slaves, including African slaves, as he was an Arab.
Jesus never married.Mohammed had at least 11 wives, with the youngest being Aisha: “The Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)
Jesus never tortured anyone.Mohammed had the Jewish chief of Khaybar stretched out on the ground and kindled a fire on his chest because he refused to tell where the tribe’s treasure was hidden.
Jesus did not permit His disciples to lie.Mohammed permitted “taqiyya,” sacred lying, holy deceit. Muslims are obligated to lie to infidels if they feel it can help advance Islam.
Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him. Mohammed instituted the death penalty for those leaving Islam, called the “ridda” apostasy laws. Egyptian Imam Yusuf Qaradaw stated: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today; Islam would have  ended since the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him … Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day. Ibn Mas’ud hadith: ‘Kill these three criminals: the adulterer, the murderer, and the apostate that leaves our community.’”
Jesus did not permit His disciples to rape anyone.Mohammed permitted this, as described in many hadiths.
Jesus forgave insults, praying for those mocking him, “Father, forgive them.”Mohammed ordered Ibn Khatal murdered for composing poems ridiculing him.
Jesus told His disciples to preach the Gospel and if they were not received to shake the dust off their feet and depart.Mohammed told his followers to offer infidel cities peace if they submitted to Allah, but if they rejected the offer, subdue them.
Jesus and His apostles were never governors or generals.Caliphs and Sultans were governors and generals.
In Islam, it is blasphemy to call Allah your father.
Jesus taught that people are children of God. Jesus taught God as our Father.In Islam, it is blasphemy to claim you are a child of Allah, as Allah took no wife and has no son.
Jesus taught that men and women are made in the image of God.In Islam, Allah has no image.
Jesus taught to have a personal relationship with God.In Islam, it is blasphemy to even want to have a personal relationship with Allah as he is transcendent and unknowable.
In the first 300 years of Christianity, Christians were thrown to the lions. They never led an armed resistance to overthrow the Roman Emperor.The first 300 years in Islam, they conquered from Arabia to Paris.

Challenge

Europe is a dynamic case study of the ongoing challenge. It has gone from a Judeo-Christian past, into a secular/LGBT present, and is now entering an Islamic future. The secular/LGBT agenda has, in effect, functioned as a transition phase from a Judeo-Christian past into an Islamic future. Western countries are having a rude awakening to the millennium-old challenge, namely, though large numbers of Muslims are moderate, with some even being courageous Muslim non-violent reformers, there will always be those drawn to follow the political-military examples of Mohammed in Medina, the “rightly-guided” Caliphs, and the Ottoman Sultans.
Western Civilization is reexamining the prophetic insight of Hilaire Belloc, one of the four great Edwardian Letter writers with H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and G.K. Chesterton, who warned in The Great Heresies (1938): “Anyone with a knowledge of history is bound to ask himself whether we shall not see in the future a revival of Mohammedan POLITICAL power, and the renewal of the old pressure of Islam upon Christendom.”
Copyright © 1996-2016 by Koinonia House Inc.
Koinonia House We freely allow other sites to post our articles, as long as:
The author is credited. A link is made to the Koinonia House web site. The article is not edited.
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
fair use