James F. Gauss, author of
And a dozen other books.
Surely the Lord God does nothing,
unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.
Is it possible that we are witnessing the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 38? In Ezekiel 38, God tells the prophet Ezekiel of a coming war in which overwhelming forces of evil from the north will come against Israel at a time when she is living in peace and the Jews from all nations have returned to Israel. Are the precursors to that great event now starting to take shape in the Middle East? Has President Obama unknowingly or purposely set the stage for the fulfillment of the prophecy in Ezekiel 38?
In case you have not been paying attention, there are some interesting developments in the Middle East that have taken place over the last 2-3 years. Before looking at this prophecy, let me catch you up on current events in the Middle East and elsewhere in case you have missed them.
ISIS. First, let’s look at the rapid development of ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). First, President Obama and his administration prefer to refer to this Islamic terrorist group as ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). That in itself is interesting and significant since only a true Muslim would understand the significance of such a reference. The “Levant” refers to the Middle Eastern area that includes Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Israel. Other countries that are sometimes included in the Levant are Egypt, Cyprus and Turkey. ISIS or ISIL has made it clear that they are establishing a new caliphate (Islamic area of control) to include the Levant. They are well on their way to doing so.
Obama insists that there is a 60+ country coalition that is fighting against ISIS, yet ISIS has grown stronger and taken over more territory in the Middle East and Northern Africa and spread its tentacles of terror into Europe and America. While the roots of ISIS have been in Syria for over a decade, the group did not rise to some prominence until after President Obama withdrew all military combat units out of Iraq at the end of 2011. However, ISIS was not unknown to U.S. military intelligence who strongly advised Obama that the group could quickly become an Islamic terrorist threat and advised the President to take military action against them. Obama did not listen to his military advisors and refused to take any action.
It has recently been disclosed by over 50 military intelligence personnel that the Obama administration, prior to the 2012 presidential election, modified their intelligence reports that warned of the threat of ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East, so that it looked like the threat of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East had been defeated.
In April, 2013 ISIS burst onto the scene taking territories in Syria and northwest Iraq. Obama’s military advisors once again recommended that he wipe out this fledgling terrorist group. Obama refused to take their advice and did nothing. Two years later (April, 2015), ISIS had grown to 31,000 fighters (some on the ground estimate up to 200,000) and are in at least 8 Middle Eastern and North African countries.
Despite receiving multiple warnings from his military advisors for over two and a half years, Obama did not authorize airstrikes against ISIS until August, 2014. Along with a handful of coalition allies only about 5-10 sorties (bombing runs) per day have been carried out, thus making the bombing effort largely ineffective in destroying ISIS. Instead, ISIS has become more brutal in its attacks on women, children, Christians, peaceful Muslims and anyone else they deem to be infidels or those that refuse to follow their brand of barbaric Islam.
Because Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq and much of Afghanistan against all military advice, ISIS not only mushroomed into a formidable military, but has been recruiting thousands of fighters and ISIS supporters from nations outside the Middle East. In addition, ISIS has been successful in getting their terrorist agents into almost every European nation and into all 50 U.S. states. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has recently confirmed that it has active investigations into ISIS cells in all 50 states.
To make the situation even worse, Obama has decided to import 255,000 virtually unvetted Middle Eastern Muslim refugees over the next 3 years—70,000 in 2015; 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017. The FBI has already declared that it will be impossible to determine who among these 255,000 “refugees” are terrorists that are seeking to do America harm. In the last year alone the Obama administration and his (not the people’s) DHS (Department of Homeland Security) deliberately permitted 1519 known Muslims or Muslim sympathizers who had a history of supporting Islamic terrorists abroad to enter the United States. Why?—because these poor terrorists committed their acts of support “under duress” according to the DHS. It is interesting that known Islamic terrorist sympathizers and supporters are given a pass because they were believed to have committed their acts under duress, but in American schools there is a “zero tolerance” policy for a second grader who accidently brought a pair of scissors to school. After all, he might slice and dice the teacher and his classmates.
Iran. It has long been known by intelligent sources that Iran has been the main sponsor and perpetrator of Islamic terrorism in the world and the chief supplier of military equipment and ordnance that killed and maimed the majority of American GIs in Iraq. As soon as Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq, Iran quickly filled the void.
To reward this seasonal purveyor of Islamic terror who regularly vows to annihilate Israel and chants “death to America” like it’s some nursery rhyme, Obama, along with the demented leaders of Germany, France, Russia and China, decided it was in the world’s best interest to strike a deal with Iran that will assure their continued “secret” development of nuclear weapons. Although the “deal” has never been fully disclosed to the American public or Congress, those parts which have been leaked have been called an atrocity and complete surrender to the world’s most evil power. Virtually every U.S. military leader has referred to the deal as a disaster of gigantic proportions that will greatly diminish Israel’s survival and possibly that of the United States and Europe.
No sooner was the ink dry on the deal, Iran insisted on other demands that would further strengthen the deal for Iran, while weakening it for the free world. After the deal was completed a representative of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) went to Iran to collect samples from Iran’s notorious Parchin military nuclear site to be analyzed for Iran’s compliance with the deal. The IAEA was not able to secure its own samples for analysis, but instead was given samples taken by Iranian personnel. Representatives of the IAEA proclaimed their site visit was a success. Really!
Such a disastrous agreement that greatly risks the safety and security of Israel, America and the entire world was led largely by Islamic-addled minds of the Obama administration. If allowed to persist, it will undoubtedly result in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or force Israel to carry out a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to preserve its existence.
Russia. Fresh from his uncontested incursion into Ukraine (where no European country or the U.S. lifted a hand in joint defense), President Vladimir Putin decided to venture into Syria under the guise of helping brutal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad fight against ISIS. Again, this was made possible due to Obama’s refusal to effectively engage this Islamic terrorist group, now formidable army. Putin is all too happy to fill the void left by Obama and establish a strong presence in the Middle East. Putin has very effectively done so by making quick alliances with Syria, Iraq and Iran. On September 30, about two weeks after Putin moved military personnel, equipment, planes, tanks, etc. into northwest Syria, Russia carried out its first airstrikes—not against ISIS (U.S. military intelligence surmised), but against Syrian rebels that are fighting against the corrupt al-Assad regime. On the very same day, Putin strongly advised the U.S. to get its military planes out of Syrian air space and stop their sorties against ISIS.
No great surprise to this writer, but the day after Russia’s first airstrikes, Iran sent thousands of foot soldiers into Syria to join up with the Islamic terrorist group, Hezbollah. To any intelligent observer, this could get out-of-hand very quickly.
Muslim migration to Europe. A direct result of Obama’s failed foreign and military strategy in the Middle East, the collapse of the Iraqi government and military and the general chaos created throughout the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of people (Muslims, Christians and other religious and ethnic groups) have been brutally raped, beaten, dismembered, barbarically murdered or driven from their homes by ISIS and associated Muslim terrorists who just happen to follow the “true” teachings of the Qur’an and their false prophet, Mohammad. Those natives that remain, mostly Muslims from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa and elsewhere, along with thousands of Mid-Eastern Christians are desperately fleeing to southern Europe. This mass migration, unprecedented in modern history, is fearfully expected to reach 35 million. If so, it will destroy the social, political, economic and religious fabric of Europe.
Europe as a whole is ill equipped to handle this mass migration of mostly hostile immigrants. Although they are fleeing Islamic terror the majority still cling to their rigid Islamic beliefs of Islamic law and Islamic domination. At the end of 2013, Europe was already home to 43.5 million Muslims or 6% of the European population. It has been suggested by Muslim culture observers and researchers, that when the Muslim population approaches 5% of the native population, chaos ensues, disrupting the normal fabric of life for those whose homeland has been “invaded” by Muslims. Historically, as well as currently, the majority of Muslims are aggressive, demanding and belligerent when it comes to asserting their way of life. For more than a decade many countries in Europe have been confronting the Islamic belligerency and even Islamic jihad with little success. Imagine if 35 million more Muslims flood European culture. Europe will never be the same.
Among the current migration to Europe are an estimated 70% young men, not families or women and children. This is of great concern, especially when a survey of those arriving disclosed that over 14% supported ISIS’ objectives. Therefore, it is deemed possible by European authorities that this Muslim migration may include thousands of ISIS or other Islamic terrorists.
Jewish migration to Israel. Depending on what survey or data one chooses to observe there is or is not a rise in anti-Semitism in European countries. While anti-Jew sentiment persists in Europe, in many countries it is unchanged, but in others it is growing. For instance, in a 2013 poll by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, it was discovered that in France, 70% of Jews surveyed said they felt threatened and 35% said they had experienced anti-Semitism. This could explain why, in the past year or two, over 20,000 Jews fled France for life in Israel.
By May of this year, the migration of Jews to Israel was up 40% over the previous year. In February, 2015, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told European Jews to return to Israel. A year ago, at a Rosh Hashana celebration in the United States, Vice President Joe Biden told a Jewish group that Israel was the only safe place for American Jews. Hundreds of American Jews appear to be taking his advice and moving to Israel.
Since 1948 when the Jewish state of Israel was re-established and through 2013, 140,488 Jews migrated to Israel from Canada and the USA. In 2014, 3,700 Jews left Canada and the United States for Israel, the most since 1983. In 2014, Israel saw a 32% increase in new settlers coming from all over the world.
There is a good reason for American Jews to consider such a move. In the good ole USA, during the 2014-2015 college year saw a reported 520 anti-Jewish events on America’s university campuses, an increase of 38% over the previous school year. While Christians and political conservatives are often banned from America’s campuses, Muslim and anti-Jew speakers are ushered in. In addition, there is a growing anti-Israel sentiment among some evangelical Christian churches in the U.S.
The nation of Israel. In early 2014, it was estimated that the world Jewish population was 14.2 million. At the beginning of 2015, Israel’s population was at 8.4 million, of which 6.3 million or 75% are Jews. The majority of the remainder, 20.7% are Arabs. This means that Israel is currently home to over 44% of the world’s Jews living in an area half the size of Switzerland. Of course this tiny nation is not surrounded by allies, but rather by those who would love to see it obliterated. Among its Middle East neighbors there are an estimated 317 million Muslims. If the Muslim nation of Pakistan is included with another 167 million Muslims, that means Israel is outnumbered 58:1. Perhaps this explains why Israel has the 4th most powerful military in the world, right behind the United States, Russia and China.
The actors in Ezekiel 38. To understand what is prophesied to transpire in Ezekiel 38, we must first identify the participants.
Gog (vs. 2). It seems that most biblical scholars concur that Gog refers to a future leader of Russia or the leader of a combined military force that comes against Israel and God.
Magog (vs. 2). Magog is considered to be the nation of Russia.
Rosh, Meshech & Tubal (vss. 2, 3). These three countries or regions are believed to be Russia’s satellite countries. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in December, 1991, the Russian empire included 14 Socialist Republics. Together with Russia, they made up what was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Soviet Union.
Persia (vs. 5). Persia is the old world and biblical name for Iran.
Ethiopía or Cush (vs. 5). Different versions of the Bible refer to this North African region as Ethiopia or Cush. Some biblical scholars believe that this may or may not refer to today’s Ethiopia but may possibly be Northern Sudan, which is occupied by radical Muslims.
Put (vs. 5). Put is Libya in Northern Africa and is 97% Muslim.
Gomer (vs. 6). Gomer is believed to be present-day Germany and Eastern Europe.
Beth-togarmah (vs. 6). The common consensus is that this region is current-day Turkey.
Sheba & Dedan (vs. 13). Most likely refers to the Arabian Peninsula countries.
Tarshish (vs. 13). There is some uncertainty about this region, but most scholars believe that it is likely Spain.
The Ezekiel 38 Prophesy, Verse by Verse. Now that we know the current events unfolding in the Middle East and the countries or regions referred to in Ezekiel 38, let’s examine each verse to see how it fits current and possibly future events in the Middle East and Israel.
NOTE: The events prophesied in Ezekiel 38 may occur before or after the “rapture”. Biblical scholars differ in their opinion. However, the battle depicted here is not the battle of Armageddon that occurs after the Great Tribulation. In any case scenario, we must be ready.
Verse (A paraphrased interpretation):
02-03. God makes it clear that the prophecy is against Magog, Rosh, Meshech & Tubal, that is against Russia and her satellite countries. Currently, Russia’s former satellite countries are independent nations. They are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Russia’s current president, Vladimir Putin, appears to have every intention of re-establishing the Russian empire. In the early spring of 2014, Russian troops invaded the Crimea region of the Ukraine. Europe, the United States and the rest of the world, although protesting meekly, did nothing. Emboldened by this lack of confrontation, Putin’s forces continue to occupy the Crimea and are threatening the rest of Ukraine. To be noted, Russia still has military bases in 8 of its former 14 satellite regions.
God’s providence was apparent throughout the brief war. Although Israel was out-flanked on all three land borders to the north, west and south and greatly outnumbered and outgunned, within hours her air force had obliterated the Egyptian air force before it got one plane off the ground. As Arab ground forces were routinely dispatched by superior Israeli forces, Egyptian soldiers ran out of their shoes as they hastily retreated across the Sinai desert. With God’s intervention, Israel quickly secured their destiny despite Russia pouring in $2 billion in military aid in support of the Arab effort to destroy Israel.
Chap. 39:1-4. God will utterly destroy the forces of Russia and her allies. God’s victory is total.
Recap. So, could we be witnessing the development of the beginning of this prophecy? A lot has to transpire. It may take years, or it could happen very quickly. Especially if the rest of the world sits back and does nothing to intervene.
First. Jews have been returning to Israel by the thousands for several decades. However, the Jewish migration to Israel increased by 32% last year and is continuing to escalate. Israel is now home to at least 44% of the world’s Jewish population.
Second. President Obama has left a huge void in the Middle East in which Israel’s enemies are all too willing to fill.
Third. President Obama, along with his prime negotiator, John Kerry, and the negotiators from Germany, France, Russia and China have assured Iran that they are free to pursue their nuclear weapon ambitions, thus greatly emboldening Iran and its desire to destroy Israel and usher in the End Times (that is, their version of it).
Fourth. Russia, under Vladimir Putin’s leadership appear to have every intention on reestablishing their dominance over their former satellite countries as well as in the Middle East.
Fifth. Putin has seen that America and Europe’s resolve to oppose him is weak and empty threats. It appears he is free to do as he pleases.
Sixth. The great migration of Muslims to Europe will dramatically alter Europe’s socio-economic, religious and political fabric, making it impossible for Jew to stay in Europe.
Seventh. The military alliance between Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq spoken of in this prophecy has already occurred.
Eighth. The armies of the north are starting to gather. Virtually all support for Israel is being withdrawn. Over the last several years the UN has issued more resolutions condemning Israel than all the other 192 member nations combined. Most of the condemning resolutions were initiated by Arab nations. In contrast, the UN has only issued eight resolutions against Iran since 2006, the leading sponsor of global terrorism.
NOTE. If you have not seen Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s powerful speech before the U.N. on October 1, you can watch it here. Also note that, not only did the Iran delegation not attend, President Obama called out America’s ambassador so that she was not present for the speech.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, nor a chronological listing. It is just a list that came to me. You may have your own additions. Feel free to let me know of any I missed.
It should be clear to any intelligent observer by now that President Obama has a clear objective (among many) of minimizing or even destroying America’s once great military. Here is a list of contributing factors.
Dateline, September 23, 2015. Now that all parties have agreed to this deal, Iran demands more concessions. The end result? Who, in their right mind, would want to enlist and serve in the U.S. military under these circumstances? The truth is that enlistments are down considerably.
Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her. . . .
. . . standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’
Revelation 18:8, 10
In Revelation 18 it is stated that Babylon’s judgment will come swiftly—“in one hour”—and is mentioned twice in verses 8, 10 and 17. But is that possible in this day and age? The simple, direct answer is, yes, but first let us take a look at America’s financial foundation and the financial stability of the world before reaching any conclusions.
United States of America’s National Debt. On October 18, 2013 America’s National Debt was rapidly advancing past $17 trillion or 107 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). To gain a perspective on the significance of America’s debt one should look at the history of America’s indebtedness as well as compare the current national debt to that of some other countries.
At the end of 1929 America had just suffered a major financial collapse. The national debt was a mere (by today’s standards) $17 billion or 16 percent of GDP. By the end of 1933 and with advent of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” Great Depression recovery plan, the United States was $23 billion in debt or 40 percent of GDP. At the end of 1941 and just after the country entered into World War II against both Germany (and the Axis powers) and Japan, the national debt stood at a manageable $49 billion or 39 percent of GDP.
The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Shelton Gilliam, June 19, 1808
When World War II ended in 1945 at a cost of $296 billion for the United States, by the end of 1946 America’s national debt had soared to $269 billion and a historical high of 121 percent of GDP. During the post-war recovery the debt remained relatively stable from 1946 to 1960, ranging from $252 billion in 1946 to $286 billion in 1960. During the same period the debt to GDP ratio steadily declined from 121 percent to 54 percent. During the decades of the 1960s and 1970s the debt grew steadily, but the GDP growth rate exceeded the debt growth rate so that the debt to GDP ratio dropped further to a post-World War II low of 31 percent by the end of 1981 but just before the recession of 1982 hit.
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
Just before the start of Ronald Reagan’s first presidential term, the national debt had risen to just under one trillion dollars—$908 billion or 33 percent of GDP by the end of 1980. During the Reagan presidency of two terms the national debt more than doubled to $2.6 trillion or 51 percent of GDP by the end of 1988.
During the two presidential terms of William Clinton the debt grew modestly from $4.4 trillion to $5.674 trillion while the debt to GDP ratio fell from 66 percent to 57 percent. From 2001 to the end of 2008 (the George W. Bush presidential years) the debt climbed significantly to a little over $10 trillion or 70 percent of GDP. Although this increase in indebtedness was dramatic, America was about to become shell-shocked.
With the election of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 as the country’s president, America would witness the reality of a big-spending government behemoth like never before. By July 4, 2013, less than six months into his second presidential term, President Obama has overseen the growth of the country’s debt to $16.9 trillion or 107 percent of GDP. By the end of his second term (if the taxpayers allow him to get there), the national debt could well exceed $20 trillion. If so, he will have accumulated more debt than all 43 presidents before him and the United States will be on the verge of financial ruin (if not before then).
Everett Dirksen, the former Republican who represented the state of Illinois in the U.S. Senate from 1951 until his death in 1969, when reflecting on the national debt in 1965 (which was $317 billion), told this humorous story, which he labeled “cat in the well”:
One time in the House of Representatives (a colleague) told me a story about a proposition that a teacher put to a boy. He said, ‘Johnny, a cat fell in a well 100 feet deep. Suppose that cat climbed up 1 foot and then fell back 2 feet. How long would it take the cat to get out of the well?’
Johnny worked assiduously with his slate and slate pencil for quite a while, and then when the teacher came down and said, ‘How are you getting along?’
Johnny said, ‘Teacher, if you give me another slate and a couple of slate pencils, I am pretty sure that in the next 30 minutes I can land that cat in hell.’
If some people get any cheer out of a $328 billion debt ceiling, I do not find much to cheer about concerning it. (Congressional Record, June 16, 1965, p. 13884).
In the world of American politics and financial mismanagement, the way to deal with the ever skyrocketing debt is not to restrain spending but just to raise the level of the amount one is allowed to spend. A similar philosophy followed by the American taxpayer would soon land them in prison.
Debt to GDP Ratios Around the World. The one most commonly used measure of a country’s economic health is the Public Debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio or percent of public debt a country owes compared to their GDP. Public Debt is the amount of money the federal government owes itself and other creditors.
With America’s debt to GDP ratio at 107 percent and rising daily, how does the country measure up to other developed countries, as well as third world or undeveloped countries? Global Finance reported on the Public Debt to GDP projections for 2014 for OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. The OECD includes just about every developed and developing country in the world. The debt to GDP for all OECD countries is projected to be 113 percent.
The worst country by far is Japan at 246 percent. Japan is followed by the European Union countries of Greece (200%), Portugal (135%), Italy (131%), Ireland (128%), United Kingdom (114%), France (110%) and Spain (105%). All of these Euro countries are in significant financial trouble and turmoil. The United States is projected to be at 114 percent debt to GDP, the same as the UK.
Other European Union countries, such as, Switzerland (39%), Germany (85%), Sweden (47%), Norway (43%), Finland (54%), Denmark (48%) and the Netherlands (72%) are looking much better.
By comparison, how do some of our non-European allies and adversaries look financially? Of the United States’ clear allies, Canada appears to be in the worst shape but still healthier than the U.S. Canada’s projected 2014 debt to GDP is 86 percent. Australia, a long term U.S. ally, on the other hand, is far healthier with only a 28 percent debt to GDP. However, two of America’s long term antagonists and adversaries are also very healthy financially. China has a 2014 projected meager debt to GDP of only 17.3 percent and its neighbor to the north, Russia, at merely 10.8 percent. Ironically, the United States has not been near that level of debt to GDP since the financial crash of 1929 when debt to GDP was at 16 percent.
Clearly, the majority of America’s long-standing allies in Europe are battling tremendous financial pressure, while its two largest and most bellicose decades-long enemies are financially strong and in a much better position to threaten the United States at every level of diplomacy or future military confrontation. . . .
The Derivative Financial Volcano. Men around the globe in general and Americans in particular, in their greedy quest for wealth and more wealth, have been led and known to do some very foolish things. It was greed that led, in part, to the “Crash of ‘29” and the ensuing “Great Depression”. It was greed that led to the real estate and banking collapse in 2008. The only question is not if another financial collapse will come, but how soon?
In the Bible there is a stark warning to all those who make money their god. In his first letter to his disciple, Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Timothy 6:9; author’s emphasis). Paul knew human nature and that the temptation to be rich was more than most men could deny. “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,” Paul continued, “for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (verse 10; author’s emphasis).
It is not money that destroys men’s lives—we all need a form of money to live—it is the love of money that draws men to do all kinds of evil. “But you, O man of God,” Paul warned, “flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness” (1 Timothy 6:11).
Because of modern man’s lust for money and more and more of it, there is one foolish financial move over the decades that could come back to haunt him and financially destroy the big and small fortunes of millions of people and the hopes and dreams of current and future generations for years to come.
So, what exactly is a derivative? They were at the center of the 2008 real estate and banking collapse. A derivative is a type of options contract—a gamble that some underlying investment will go up or down in the future. Derivatives are largely “imaginary” investments with little or no intrinsic value. In essence, rather than a true tangible investment, they represent more of a “crap-shoot”—a horrific gamble by men driven by an insatiable appetite for wealth and more of it. The future impact, when the derivative market unravels, will be catastrophic and unfathomable.
Steve Denning, in an article for Forbes, in an explanation for the financial collapse of 2008, wrote “the warning signs were everywhere: too much borrowing, foolish investments, greedy banks, regulators asleep at the wheel, politicians eager to promote home-ownership for those who couldn’t afford it, and distinguished analysts openly predicting this could only end badly.
The worldwide derivative estimate: $600 trillion to $1.5 quadrillion (that is $1,500 trillion or 1.5 followed by 15 zeroes). At the upper estimate, the financial risk is 20 times the entire global GDP, which was estimated to be around $75 trillion in 2012.
“. . . The root cause wasn’t just the reckless lending and the excessive risk taking,” Denning explained. “The problem at the core was a lack of transparency” [among financial institutions].
The worldwide exposure to derivatives is anyone’s guess. Estimates range from $600 trillion to $1.5 quadrillion (that is $1,500 trillion or 1.5 followed by 15 zeroes). At the upper estimate, the financial risk is 20 times the entire global GDP, which was estimated to be around $75 trillion in 2012. No one really knows what the world financial markets exposure is to these worthless financial “investments”.
The Current Problem: Many financial analysts and financial writers like Denning are warning that the next financial crisis, which they see as imminent, will make the burst of the financial bubble of 2008 look like a blip on the financial radar screen.
Denning points out that one financial institution alone, JPMorgan, at the end of the third quarter of 2012, had a “notional” (that is, “imaginary” or “speculative”) exposure to derivatives of $72 trillion or about five times the world economy at that time. According to the United States Controller of the Currency office, at the end of 2012, American banks held an astounding $223 trillion in “notional” derivatives with only four of the nation’s largest banks holding 93 percent of the total.
The Flash Crash and Electronic Meltdown—In One Hour. So, is it possible, in this day and age, for America’s financial system and that of the world to collapse in one hour? Absolutely! Not only in one hour, but perhaps in a matter of seconds. With absolutely everything tied together by computer systems, electricity and electronics it would not take much to create havoc with a nation’s or the world’s financial system and life in general.
On July 29, 2013 a panel of experts convened in Washington, DC to consider the level of the threat on the U.S. infrastructure via an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, whether naturally occurring or via terrorists or a nation-state. The panel included R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence under President Bill Clinton; former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich; Ambassador Henry Cooper, former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under President George H. W. Bush and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry who served on the Congressional EMP Threat Commission.
They assessed America’s vulnerability to a natural or enemy attack by means of an electromagnetic pulse coming from the sun or a nuclear device. They concluded that the U.S. is extremely susceptible to EMP disruptions whether natural or from a lone terrorist or a rogue government.
On a smaller, local scale, many people have had the experience of a temporary interruption in electrical power or use of electronic devices due to a powerful thunder (electrical) storm. On a grander scale, such interruptions can be caused by the electromagnetic pulses sent from the sun as a result of solar flares or solar storms. Such natural EMP events can be regional or wide spread; can be minor inconveniences or devastating.
Mr. Woolsey pointed out that an EMP event originating from the sun struck the electrical grid in Quebec, Canada on March 13, 1989. The solar geomagnetic storm resulted in the blackout of eastern Canada and billions of dollars in economic losses. Within two minutes the entire Quebec power grid was shut down and millions thrown into darkness and winter cold. Schools, businesses and transportation hubs were closed. The impact affected some northeastern U.S. power grids as well. The energy released during the event was estimated to be like thousands of nuclear bombs exploding. The geomagnetic storm that it created resulted in spectacular “northern lights” being seen as far south as Florida and Cuba. Over 200 power grids from coast to coast in the United States experienced disruptions. Even some satellites were affected, tumbling out of control for several hours.
Although such solar geomagnetic events are relatively rare, Mr. Woolsey warned . . .
For more on America’s financial crisis, read Revelation 18 and the fate of America.
And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
2 Corinthians 6:15
Do Judeo-Christian Faiths Have Any Common Ground With Islam? There is not, nor can there ever be any “common ground” between Islam and the Judeo-Christian faiths.
NOTE: For Christian leaders and Christians to accept common ground or a common word with Muslims,
Jesus said that in the End Times “. . . false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). The Apostle Paul, in his second letter to the church of the Thessalonians, wrote, “and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). Many leaders in the Christian church as well as in Christian colleges, universities and seminaries are being deceived by the evil one. In their desire to see harmony between Christians, Jews and Muslims, they are casting aside foundational principles and teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although Jesus called His followers to love all people, He did not call them to cast aside wisdom, understanding and discernment of the devil’s tactics, nor to make an alliance with evil.
Paul also wrote to his protégé, Timothy, warning him about deceiving spirits in the End Times. “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:1-2). Unfortunately, too many Christian leaders, in an effort to be more in line with the world and to be politically correct, are abandoning the teachings and doctrines of the Christian faith and are succumbing to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.
In an attempt to bring peace between Muslims and the Judeo-Christian world, there is a desperate move to acquiesce to the satanic faith of Islam. This will not bear forth good fruit, but only more deception and weakening of the Christian faith.
“Do not be deceived,” the Apostle Paul wrote, “God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7).
The Apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church. In my book on the Roman Catholic Church, I wrote the following discourse on the RCC’s position on Islam.
On November 29, 2014, in a gesture of what the Vatican described as “interreligious dialogue”, Pope Francis entered the Sultan Ahmet Mosque (known as the “Blue Mosque”) in Istanbul, Turkey and solemnly bowed his head in silent prayer with Ankara’s Grand Mufti (Muslim expert of Islamic law), Mehmet Görmez, and two imams (Muslim religious leaders). In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI visited the same mosque and offered a similar prayer. While the Vatican and the Holy Sees (popes) may have seen these ventures into the Blue Mosque as an innocuous interfaith gesture, it was and is viewed differently by the Muslim community and Jehovah God of the Christians and Jews. Among Muslims, especially Islamic leadership, this was seen as a great victory and legitimizing of their cause, which is world domination by Islam.
After the Pope’s silent prayer it was reported that the Grand Mufti read verses from the Qur’an that touted Allah as being a god of love and peace. However, nothing could be further from the truth (read Islam & Christianity, A Revealing Contrast). The Pope remarked that God must be adored as well as worshipped. On that, the Grand Mufti and the Pope agreed, which would imply that both the Pope and Mufti believe they worship the same god. The Vatican described it as a “beautiful moment of dialogue”.
The Roman Catholic Church has a distorted and non-biblical understanding of Islam as disclosed by this proclamation: But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind (from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, on November 21, 1964).
Muslims do not and cannot trace their faith to Abraham, but Arabs rightfully do through their ancestry from Ishmael according to the Bible. In the Bible (Genesis 16 & 17), Abraham’s son, Ishmael, born of the slave girl, Hagar, was banned from the Promised Land and had no inheritance with Abraham. In fact, God never acknowledged Ishmael as Abraham’s son, but only Isaac.
Muslims do not worship the God of Jews and Christians (again, read Islam & Christianity). Their god, Allah, is a false, pagan god of antiquity who is the antithesis of Jehovah God of the Jews and Christians. It is interesting that in the preceding declaration the Vatican and the Pope believe that the plan of salvation includes among the first, the Muslims and not the Jews, to whom Jesus was the promised Messiah. Muslims are not taught, nor do they believe that they worship a “merciful” god, but to them (and as written in the Qur’an), their god, Allah, is a god of vengeance, not mercy. Muslims worship a creator, not The Creator, God Almighty.
From Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, #3”, the Roman Catholic Church clearly states: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
“If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods,” Jehovah God warned the Israelites, “then He will turn and do you harm and consume you, after He has done you good” (Joshua 24:20; NKJV). To acknowledge the god of Islam as the One and Only true God that the Jews and Christians worship is an apostasy—a falling away from God—of the highest order.
Jesus said, “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33; NKJV). By aligning themselves with the pagan faith of Islam and acknowledging that their god, Allah, is the same as God Almighty, the Roman Catholic Church is denying Jesus Christ, who made it clear that “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).
Christianity and Christians can have no bond with Islam or its god. Their god and the teachings of Mohammad deny and reverse all that Jesus stood for and taught. Once again, the Apostle Paul warned the followers of Jesus Christ:
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial [Satan]? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
Therefore “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; NKJV).
[From, “Why I Left the Catholic Church”, pp. 55-59.]
Blasphemimg the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32).
The Apostle Mark recorded Jesus’ words more succinctly. “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:28-29).
Why is blaspheming the Holy Spirit more important than speaking against Jesus Christ? Because Jesus said that the role of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life is to teach you all things, to bring to your remembrance all things that Jesus taught (John 14:26) and that “when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-14). Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit has the authority from God the Father to be the author of all truth and that truth is spoken by the Holy Spirit direct from God Almighty. To reject or ignore that truth is blasphemy and the unforgiveable sin that Jesus spoke of. For Christians and Christian leaders to state or imply that Allah is God or that Christian, Jews and Muslims worship the same god is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit of God.
The Apostle John wrote, “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him” (1 John 2:27).
The author of the letter to the Hebrews warned: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:4-6); “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26).
Be sure to read Apostasy in the American Church, Part 1 here.
For more information and insight, read Islam & Christianity, A Revealing Contrast by this author.
And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
2 Corinthians 6:15
Prominent leaders in America, from President Obama, to former President George W. Bush to the late Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Francis, as well as numerous well-known Christian leaders in America and around the world, all profess that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship and pray to the same god. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Is Abraham the Father of Islam? Islam is not an Abrahamic faith. Despite the numerous proclamations by Muslim scholars and imams and even those in academia, including professors of Christian colleges, universities and seminaries, Abraham is not the “father of Islam”, nor can Islam rightly lay a claim to such. First, let us look at the biblical and historical facts. Most sources estimate that Abraham (nee Abram) was born around 2166 B.C. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was born around 570 or 571 A.D. or about 2,700 years after Abraham.
Although the Arabic nations of the Middle East can rightfully claim Abraham as their ancestral father, Muslims cannot. According to the Bible and other historical records, Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abram and the pagan slave woman, Hagar, was driven by Abram into the wilderness. Ishmael became the father of twelve Arabian princes (nations) whom God said that He would “multiply … exceedingly” (Genesis 17:20). Ishmael and Hagar were driven into the Wilderness of Paran to dwell (Genesis 21:20-21). This wilderness covers the eastern Sinai and the southern and southeastern borders of present-day Israel.
Ishmael’s sons initially inhabited an area from Egypt and the Sinai Desert, the Arabian peninsula to Assyria (which includes present-day Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and the lesser Arab kingdoms). So, the Arabian kingdoms were established about 2,700 years before Muhammad, the purveyor of Islam was even born. Therefore, despite their incessant claims to legitimize their faith, Muslims have no ancestral claim to Abraham as do the Jews and Christians through the Hebrew Messiah, Jesus Christ.
In addition, in another fallacious attempt to validate their religion, Muslims claim that Islam is the “original” religion of everyone in the Bible, from Adam to Moses to Jesus Christ and the Apostles—all were really Muslims. This claim persists, despite the fact that, Islam was not “birthed” until almost 600 years after Christ’s death and resurrection.
Is Allah, the God of Jews & Christians? The demonic anti-Christ, anti-Jew god of Islam is not the same as the God of the Jews and Christians. For a Christian or Jew to profess otherwise is an apostasy and abomination to the One and Only True God of the universe. Allah, as portrayed by Muhammad and in the Qur’an is a demonic revelation from the pits of hell. Even Muhammad first believed that his “revelations” were from demons.
For anyone who is a student of the Bible, and especially those that have a “personal” relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (and therefore an intimate relationship with God the Father), it is abundantly clear that the God of the Bible is not the god portrayed in the Qur’an or by his prophet, Muhammad. The God of the Bible has humanity-favoring characteristics that Allah does not. The God of the Bible has a loving, merciful plan of redemption for all mankind. The god of the Qur’an does not. Every characteristic of Allah in the Qur’an and that espoused by Muhammad is the converse of God Almighty of the Bible. The Qur’an and Muhammad repeatedly portray Allah as a vengeful, unloving, unmerciful god who has no plan to redeem mankind from its sins.
While the God of the Bible does punish the Jews for their rebellion against Him; their unfaithfulness and turning to pagan gods, He is always ready to forgive and receive them back once they repent and return to Him. By contrast, Allah is unforgiving and only wants to destroy all those that refuse to acknowledge him—especially the Jews and the Christians.
For the persistent reader and student of the Bible, it is clear that Jehovah God had a covenant plan of redemption and salvation for His people, the Jews, and for all those who chose Him through the redemptive work on the cross by His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Allah reverses all that, claiming that no such covenant or plan of redemption existed and that Jesus Christ was nothing more than a man who by Qur’anic implication was of lesser importance than Muhammad, the vendor of evil and mayhem.
Both the biblical and historical records define the ministry of Jesus as one of compassion, love and peaceful redemption. Jesus never led any rebellions; never conducted any raids upon the people; never assaulted or killed anyone; never robbed anyone or took their possessions; never advocated revenge upon His enemies or those who disagreed with Him or refused to follow Him. Muhammad, on the other hand, was the dead opposite of Jesus. Muhammad was violent, oppressive; a murderer and rapist; a man of hate and vengeance. Everything that Muhammad was or represented, Jesus was not.
Now, if Allah is the same god as the God of the Jews and Christians (the God of the Bible), why would he send Muhammad and a message that completely reversed everything He stood for in thousands of years of biblical and historical truth? The answer is simple: Jehovah God, the One and Only True God, would not and did not. The Bible says that the true God cannot lie and cannot go back on His word, but fulfills what He promises (Number 23:19) and His promise throughout the Bible was the coming of the redemptive love of His Son, Jesus Christ. There are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming of Jesus Christ. There are no prophecies about the coming of Muhammad, the false prophet.
Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Islam’s teachings and 14 centuries of practice are the antithesis of peace and peacemakers. In spite of the incessant proclamations by Muslims and Muslim leaders and ignorant Christians and media talking heads, Islam is not and never has been a religion that fomented or propagated the concept or reality of peace. Unlike Christians, Muslims have never had a “prophet of peace” or a leader for peace.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus said: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27). By stark contrast, Muhammad reportedly said: “I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped.” This is quoted by virtually every Muslim jihadist in their justification for their murderous purges against the “infidels” of the world.
[From Islam & Christianity, A Revealing Contrast] . . . Twenty centuries of secular and religious history attest to Jesus Christ as the “Prince of Peace.” No other deity or human being has or can claim that title. Around 740 B.C., the Old Testament prophet Isaiah heralded the coming of the Jewish Messiah with this revelation from God:
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6, NKJV).
“Surely,” the prophet Isaiah testified, “he [the promised Messiah] took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). Certainly, this type of sacrifice for others is not something that Muhammad could lay claim to as Allah’s last and most important prophet. Muhammad never took upon himself anyone’s sicknesses or sins. He never suffered torture or extreme punishment and pain for the sake of his follower’s inner peace and spiritual freedom.
. . . Not only is the Judeo-Christian God known as the God of Peace, but He sent His Son to be the example of His peace on earth. Christ established a new covenant built upon the old promises of God, restoring God’s peace to mankind through His shed blood on the cross. The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the church at Ephesus, put it this way:
For he himself is our peace, who was made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out
of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility (Ephesians 2:14-16).
It was Almighty God’s intention from the beginning to bring His Son into the world to abolish the old covenant that brought enmity between God and His creation. Through Jesus’ sacrifice and shedding of blood on the cross, God installed a new covenant of reconciliation and peace. Allah, on the other hand, according to his revelations to Muhammad, used Muhammad to bring about discord and blood shed—not the sacrificial blood of Muhammad, his chosen prophet—but the shed blood of all those deemed to be the enemies of Allah.
. . . According to the Qur’an, adherents to Islam are to fight against all who stand in the way of the spread of Islam and to fight against anyone who refused to enter into the Islamic faith.
And fight with them [the unbelievers] until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do (surah 8:39). Islam & Christianity, A Revealing Contrast, pp. 93-95.
A Common Word Response. On October 13, 2007, an initial group of 138 Muslim scholars, Muslim religious leaders and Muslim organization leaders from around the world penned an open letter (A Common Word between Us and You) to leaders of Christianity worldwide. It was a veiled attempt to establish that there is common ground among Muslims, Christians and Jews, including the worship of the one and same god. The fact that some of the signatories represented known U.S.-based terror sponsoring groups is not comforting.
The gist and appeal of the lengthy letter is that we all (Muslims, Christians and Jews) have the same heritage, worship the same god and desire peace in the world. “The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians”, the Muslim letter begins. “The basis for this peace and understanding already exists,” it continues. “It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.”
The letter proffers that Allah is a god of love and that he wants nothing more than justice and freedom of religion for all. But then the authors offer up this conundrum: “The central creed of Islam consists of the two testimonies of faith or Shahadahs [Muslim prayer of faith], which state that: There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God. These Two Testimonies are the sine qua non [indispensible condition] of Islam. He or she who testifies to them is a Muslim; he or she who denies them is not a Muslim.” That is the bottom line that supersedes all the Muslim rhetoric: If you are not a Muslim, you are an infidel that is worthy of persecution and death. Forget all the proclamations that Islam offers freedom of religion or that it is a religion of peace. Those and many more claims are the deceptive lies of Satan.
You can read more of A Common Word between Us and You here.
The “Christian” Response. On November 18, 2007, a full page ad was published in the New York Times, with the heading: Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You. It was authored by scholars at the Yale (University) Center for Faith & Culture and was initially signed by 300 Christian leaders from around the world. The letter agreed with the Muslim letter premise of having a common goal with Muslims of loving God and loving one’s neighbor and implied that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Many well-known Christian leaders (pastors, priests, Christian college, university and seminary leaders and heads of Christian organizations and denominations signed on to the letter, thus agreeing with its content.
The letter started out by affirming Islam as an Abrahamic faith and then stated, “we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One [Allah] and of the Muslim community around the world” for the Christian crusades against the Muslims. The crusades were the response of from Pope Urban II and the kings of Europe to recover southern Europe from decades of insurgency by murderous Muslims from Africa and the Middle East and recover the Holy Land from Islamic domination. That the signatories would plead for Allah’s forgiveness is a travesty of the Christian faith.
Throughout the letter it is stressed or implied that God and Allah are one and the same. The signatories accept the Muslim premise and lie that Muslims are commanded to love their neighbor just like Christians. However, there is no such command in Islam. While Muslims are called to love each other (but fail to do so), there is no such requirement in the Qur’an to love non-Muslims.
You can read the entire letter of Christian response here , as well as see the initial 300 signatories.
Continued: Be sure to read Apostasy in the American Church, Part 2 here.
For a more complete study on Islam, read Islam & Christianity, A Revealing Contrast.
Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]
. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”
Abortion―Child Sacrifice. The human race, regrettably, has had a long history (since Cain killed his brother Abel) of having, at times, a strong disregard for human life—especially for those judged to be less valuable or less than human. When the first colonists arrived in the “New World” that was to be dubbed “America” they had a vision for a new life of peace and freedom. However, it did not take long for some among them, including clergy, to ascertain that the resident peoples were unlike them and therefore “savages” and proclaimed them to be somehow less than human and therefore worthy of the superior invaders wrath and adverse sentence, including murder.
Right behind the oppression of the Native American came that of those of dark skin color, the Africans who were imported against their will and also treated like savages and sub-humans, even by members of the Christian church. Many were tortured or murdered for no other reason than they were the wrong skin color and considered to be less than human.
Fast forward to the second half of the 20th century in America and another large group of human beings were adjudged to be non-human just because, although they were fully alive, they were still in their mother’s womb and therefore determined to not be an independent human being. The prejudice against them had nothing to do with skin color, race, ethnicity, heritage, economic status or any other human factor other than that they were determined to be unwanted; an inconvenience; a mistake. The innocent blood of these victims was shed simply because they were conceived by one or more uncaring, unloving people who considered the miracle within the womb as just a lump of tissue.
U.S. Abortion Statistics:
Abortion is a form of child sacrifice, and as such, is detestable to the Living God. Child sacrifice is a type of witchcraft and idol worship which God cannot and will not tolerate. America started the worldwide acceptance of abortion with the acceptance of the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion. America is the world leader in this heinous crime against life and since 1973 an estimated 56-plus million American babies have prematurely lost their lives (as of this writing). Worldwide, thanks to this initiative introduced by the United States, over 1.3 billion babies throughout the world have been aborted since 1980 and over 26 million in the first eight months of 2013.
The Word of God clearly states that “children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; they shall not be ashamed, but shall speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3-5; author’s emphasis).
Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
King David, in Psalm 139 acknowledged to God that “You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16; author’s emphasis). According to the biblical incite of David, God considers His creation within the mother’s womb to be fully human from the moment of conception. A baby in the womb is no less human than anyone walking around outside the womb. In fact, in Jeremiah 1:5, God tells Jeremiah that “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you . . .” God also spoke similar words to the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 49:1, 5).
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America in the Declaration of Independence wrote, “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 . . .” Note that the Declaration uses certain undeniably clear words: self-evident; created; endowed; unalienable. Self-evident means that what was to follow was so obvious that anyone with any intelligence could understand it. When the Founders declared that all men are created equal they understood that this equality started at creation in the womb, not after birth. Otherwise they would have said that all men were born equal. And, they understood that it was God, not man; not government that endowed mankind with certain unalienable (non-transferrable; not to be terminated or sold) rights; among the first of those was life.
. . . the moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis for all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and ware, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.
Noah Webster, 1843, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects
In the Old Testament God forbid the Israelites to sacrifice their children to Molech (or Moloch), the god of the neighboring Ammonites. The Ammonites routinely sacrificed their children to Molech in an attempt to ward off evil. However, God condemned the practice and told the Israelites that “. . . you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:21). But Israel rejected God’s warning. King Solomon, despite the faithfulness of his father David, worshipped the gods of the heathens around him and even built a temple on the Mount of Olives for Molech and the god of the Moabites, Chemosh (1 Kings 11:5-8). Almost 250 years after the end of Solomon’s reign, Manasseh became king of Judah after his righteous father, Hezekiah, had eliminated pagan worship and child sacrifice. Manasseh turned his back on God and again led the Jews into child sacrifice, even offering up his own son to the pagan god (2 Kings 21:6). Thus, the descent of the Jews continued as they did what was an abomination in the eyes of their God and their end was assured. God promised when He laid down His law, that those who sacrificed their children to alien gods would be cut off from Him. Not only those who practiced such a heinous act, but also those who accepted it (Leviticus 20:1-5).
In an attempt to stem the flow of U.S. taxpayer monies to fund abortions outside the United States, Republican President Ronald Reagan announced in August, 1984 that any foreign NGOs (Non-government Organizations) that received funding through USAID (United States Agency for International Development) must not use non-USAID funds to perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning. This policy stayed in effect until two days after Democratic President William Clinton took office on January 20, 1993. One of Clinton’s first objectives was to rescind the policy, thus once again opening the door to U.S. taxpayer funded abortions abroad. As soon as Republican President George W. Bush took office in January, 2001, he re-instated the policy.
Mexico City Policy
In August, 1984 Republican President Ronald Reagan directed that USAID (United States Agency for International Development) withhold U.S. taxpayer funds to NGOs (Non-government Organizations) that use non-USAID funds for the practice of abortion and other related activities. Since the policy was announced at the United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City, it became known as the “Mexico City Policy”.
In restoring the policy, President Bush stated, “It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad.”
Then, just like the wicked Manasseh that took Judah down the path to destruction, the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama, only three days after his first term inauguration on January 20, 2009, rescinded the Mexico City Policy. In a White House Memorandum of January 23, 2009, President Obama instructed that the three previous Memorandums by President Bush be revoked and parroting the words that President Clinton spoke on January 22, 1993, said that, “These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations.”
On August 13, 2013 the total number of abortions in the United States since Roe vs. Wade were estimated to be 56,514,430. Since 1980, over 1.3 billion abortions have occurred worldwide.
Source: U.S. Abortion Clock.org, http://www.numberofabortions.com
Obama not only supports the evils of abortion, but he supports the barbaric practice of killing of those who are already born but unwanted, otherwise known as “partial-birth” abortion, the gruesome act of partially delivering a near or full term baby and then killing it. Obama has been an outspoken advocate of this murderous procedure since going on record in support of it in 2003. So in favor of abortion at any stage of infant development that he hired the most radical abortion supporter he could find as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, former Kansas governor. Together they turned around and actively supported Planned Parenthood, making sure it was funded with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money—$542 million in 2011 alone. Thus, once again America was led down the slippery slope of ignoring God’s directive as well as the intent of the Founders of this once great nation.
The loss of innocent life at the hands of another is always tragic, but with abortion there is also collateral impact of immeasurable magnitude. There is the great emotional trauma—realized or not—for the one having the abortion. There is also an ancillary impact on those associated with the one having the abortion; and the untold impact on the soul of America—psychologically, morally, economically, and most importantly, spiritually.
Who knows what the impact is to America in the loss of 56-plus million future contributors to American society as inventors, entrepreneurs, educators, doctors, taxpayers, etc. has had on the American psyche and development.
If the mother of an unborn child can freely chose to terminate the life of a human being, why would anyone expect that surviving children would themselves have any respect for human life or grow up to be adults who do?
More U.S. Abortion Facts (2009):
The moral conscience and compass of American society and all future generations has been permanently seared with the blood of the innocents. Once again man has set himself up as a god as he ignores the dictates of the One and only true God. Man is no longer accountable to moral absolutes or the precepts of the Bible. He is now God and only he has the wisdom of the ages and knows what is best for him and society.
God detests the spilling of innocent blood, especially that of children. He severely chastised the Jews for succumbing to the evil practice of sacrificing the lives of their children. “They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons,” the Psalmist wrote in reflecting on Israel’s past, “and shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they were defiled by their own works, and played the harlot by their own deeds” (Psalm 106:37-39).
To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rest on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.
Daniel Webster’ Oration delivered at Fryeburg, Maine, July 4, 1802
Those who have abortions, and especially those that call themselves Christian, seem to forget that the life within them first belongs to God. He created it; He ordained it. No human has the right to take that life away. God told the Jews through the prophet Ezekiel that the very children that they were sacrificing were first born to Him and that they were slaying His children (Ezekiel 16:20-21). Because of this shedding of innocent blood God promised the Jews that, “I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy” (Ezekiel 16:36-38).
NOTE: For more on America’s moral decay, including Evolution, the Great Deception, Sexual Perversion, The Complicity of the Voter & Church and more, read Revelation 18 and the fate of America.
Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]
. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”
Prayer Out of the Schools. The United States Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren issued three crushing decisions on prayer in public schools. The first was in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) and two in 1963 (Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp). The decision to ban prayer and Bible reading from public schools was made as a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the First Amendment and the “wall of separation between church and state” dogma.
In the 1962 Engel v. Vitale case the issue centered on a prayer drafted by the New York State Board of Regents. It simply read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Although it was not a biblical prayer or denominational prayer, the parents of ten students took offense and sued the Hyde Park, New York school district claiming the prayer violated the U.S. Constitution.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
The Board of Regents believed that such a non-descript, non-denominational prayer would get the students off to a good daily start and encourage good moral character, promote spiritual guidance and help overcome juvenile delinquency. Since students were not required to participate and participation in the prayer was completely optional, the educators felt they were on solid constitutional ground.
The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 3, 1962. Nearly three months later the Court rendered a majority 6-1 decision on June 25. Associate Justice Hugo Black rendered the opinion for the Court.
In part, Justice Black wrote for the majority: “This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents . . . they recommended and published as a part of their ‘Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools,’ saying: ‘We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program.’
“. . . We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. . . .”
Without citing any references, Justice Black then went on to enlist Thomas Jefferson to support his contention and conclusions about the “religious nature of prayer”.
Hear my prayer, O God; Give ear to the words of my mouth.
In the paragraph containing the Court’s decision, Black wrote: “The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion
must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart was the lone dissenting vote. Justices Felix Frankfurter and Byron White took no part in the decision.
In part, Justice Stewart summarized the case as he saw it. “A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.”
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985)
Justice Stewart was appointed to the Court on October 14, 1958 by President Dwight Eisenhower and confirmed by the U.S. Senate the following May in a 70-17 vote. All dissenters were Democrats. Stewart was a centrist Republican who believed that the Warren Court misinterpreted the First Amendment “Establishment Clause” and exceeded the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
“The Court does not hold, nor could it,” Stewart wrote, “that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody’s religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any ‘embarrassments and pressures.’. . . the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established ‘an official religion.’
“With all respect,” he continued, “I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation. . . .”
Religion is necessary to correct the effects of learning. Without religion I believe learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind . . .
Dr. Benjamin Rush, Letter to John Armstrong on March 19, 1783
Justice Stewart went on to point out the inconsistencies of the nation’s religious observances. “At the opening of each day’s Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’ Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy [then in office], has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God. . . .
“In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words ‘one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. Since 1865 the words ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ have been impressed on our coins.”
Stewart wrote that he could list countless other examples but that his position could be summed by the fact that, “It was . . . this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: ‘We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being’” [see Zorach v. Clauson].
“I do not believe that this Court,” Stewart concluded, “or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an ‘official religion’ in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974)
Warren was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1953 by President Dwight Eisenhower. Warren, although a Republican, was philosophically a centrist to liberal in his judicial renderings. He served on the Court until 1969.
A year later, on the same day, the same Court (with Arthur J. Goldberg, a Democrat replacing Frankfurter) decided two other contentious cases that were argued before the Court at the same time concerning school prayer— Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp.
In the Murray v. Curlett case, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a radical militant atheist, who was despised and hated by many Christians and fellow atheists, brought suit against the Baltimore, Maryland school board. Like the previous complaint in New York, O’Hair sued because she claimed that her son William’s school violated the First Amendment by having students recite the “Lord’s Prayer” (Matthew 6:9-13). She also came against the school board’s approval of the daily reading from the Bible.
Section 1 [of 5]. . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Passed by Congress on June 13, 1866
Before reaching the Supreme Court, a local Maryland judge, J. Gilbert Pendergast, dismissed O’Hair’s petition, saying, “It is abundantly clear that petitioners’ real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system.” The Maryland Court of Appeals had a similar viewpoint and concluded that, “Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government.”
In the Abington Township School District [of Pennsylvania] v. Schempp the complaint was similar—that the voluntary student participation in morning prayer and listening to a teacher recitation of ten verses of the Bible was unconstitutional.
In its majority 8-1 decision in both cases, with Justice Stewart once again being the lone dissenter, the Court once again cited its position as in Engel v. Vitale but with many more pages of nebulous Founder legal positions and case law. The bottom line was that, again Thomas Jefferson’s non-binding, non-Constitutional statement on the “wall of separation between church and state” was held up as the justification for their affirmative decision for the plaintiffs. When attorney for the petitioners, Leonard Kerpelman, used Jefferson’s statement in his presentation and implied it was in the Constitution, Justice Stewart quickly interrupted and asked him where it occurred. A silence fell over the Court as Kerpelman was stumped for an answer.
In writing his dissent, Justice Stewart stated, in part:
I think the records in the two cases before us are so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented. Specifically, I cannot agree that on these records we can say that the Establishment Clause has necessarily been violated. But I think there exist serious questions under both that provision and the Free Exercise Clause – insofar as each is imbedded in the Fourteenth Amendment – which require the remand of these cases for the taking of additional evidence.
The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard these two provisions as establishing a single constitutional standard of “separation of church and state,” which can be mechanically applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion. We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and as a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways. Secondly, the fact is that while in many contexts the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause fully complement each other, there are areas in which a doctrinaire reading of the Establishment Clause leads to irreconcilable conflict with the Free Exercise Clause.
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, Signer, U.S. Constitution
Interestingly and sadly, not one Christian group, church or organization chose to file a brief in either case on behalf of prayer or Bible reading in the public schools. However, it is important to note that these joint decisions by the Supreme Court, DID NOT, as widely believed, remove prayer or Bible reading from the public schools. The Court only concluded that “government-sponsored” prayer and Bible reading were a violation of the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment. Students in public schools are still free to pray or read the Bible on their own or to conduct or participate in prayer or Bible study groups.
In essence, what the Warren Supreme Court decided to do was to deliberately misinterpret and re-write the First Amendment. They changed the intent of the “Establishment Clause” of the Founders and replaced it with at statement out-of-context made by Jefferson in a letter. North Carolina’s senator at the time, Sam Ervin (1896-1985), quipped, “I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public school must be segregated against Him?”
Perhaps ironically, O’Hair’s son, William J. Murray, became a Christian and a Baptist minister and is chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition and author of My Life Without God.
Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]
. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”
Separation of Church and State. After the dual victories against the Nazis of Germany in Europe and in the Pacific against the Imperialist Japanese, the people of America were euphoric. Despite tremendous losses of life and great national hardship, Americans believed that nothing was beyond them; that there was great redemption ahead. Wartime industry re-tooled for domestic production and a house building boom ensued as returning soldiers sought to return to civilian life.
America was definitely on the upswing—emotionally, economically and spiritually. Then the big lie was foisted on the citizenry of the United States that destroyed the Judeo-Christian foundation of the country. Prior to the big lie America had frequently had challenges to its Constitution, its interpretation and espoused way of life for the citizens of America. But nothing destroyed the biblical foundation and fabric of faith more than the big lie of the “Wall of Separation of Church and State.”
. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
Although there had been previous attempts to weaken the role of the Christian church in the lives of Americans, the door was opened wide to usher in a full assault on February 10, 1947 (less than two years after the end of WWII). On that date the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision in the case of Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (New Jersey) made what would become a “landmark” decision relative to the issue of the “Separation of Church and State”. The case originated when a New Jersey taxpayer, Arch Everson, sued the Board of Education of Ewing Township because he claimed that their reimbursement of the costs of bus transportation to parents of students going to religious schools was a violation of the “Establishment” clause of the First Amendment.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
Representing the majority decision, Justice Black reviewed the essence of the case. “A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. . . . this statute, authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial schools.”
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971)
Justice Black was a lawyer and a Democratic U.S. Senator from Alabama who was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937.
“The appellant,” Black continued, “in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a state court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of parochial school students. He contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions. . . .”
Justice Black pointed out that “The New Jersey statute is challenged as a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion.’
The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, commands that a state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . Whether this New Jersey law is one respecting an ‘establishment of religion’ requires an understanding of the meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of taxes.”
In an effort to explain the majority decision Justice Black wrote several paragraphs that reviewed the religious history of the early settlers and his understanding of the intent of the Founders in authoring the First Amendment.
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
Justice Hugo Black, February 10, 1947, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
“A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches,” Black wrote.
“. . . The imposition of taxes”, Justice Black penned, “to pay ministers’ salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment.” In the same paragraph Black referred to the colonists of Virginia and their role in understanding the importance of religious freedom. Presumably referring to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Virginia General Assembly on January 16, 1786, Black wrote that “The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.”
Referring to earlier Supreme Court history in relation to the First Amendment, Justice Black continued. “This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute.”
Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (1924-2005)
Justice Rehnquist was a conservative Republican attorney who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in January, 1972. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to become Chief Justice.
Although Justice Black and the justices that joined in the majority decision got it right by deciding that neither Ewing Township nor the State of New Jersey violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, Justice Black
concluded the decision with this sentence: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” The five justices determined that the laws of New Jersey had not breached this “wall” between church and state. However, by referring to Jefferson’s statement on the “wall of separation between church and state” in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, the justices forever opened a Pandora ’s Box for judicial misinterpretation and misapplication of Jefferson’s intention.
Thirty-eight years later in another landmark case before the Supreme Court, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985, the Court, using the same “wall of separation” reasoning, in a 6-3 majority decision struck down the Alabama public school’s minute of silence for personal meditation or prayer. Dissenting Associate Justice, William Rehnquist, wrote for the minority opinion, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers [of the Constitution] intended to build a wall of separation. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the Framers.”
If the Founding Fathers meant to insert a separation of church and state clause in the Constitution, why did they not? To the contrary, in the midst of debating the ideals of the Constitution, they passed the Northwest Ordinance on July 13, 1787 that included this maxim: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
(For a more complete review and understanding of the issue of the “wall of separation between church and state” read We the People: Birth of a Nation by this author.)