The American founding fathers are as demigods to the conservative Americans and particularly those calling themselves Christian conservatives, despite the obvious antipathy a number of the leading founders had toward the mainstream denominations and Christianity in general.
The conservatives calling themselves Christians cite the founding fathers as upholding the Christian founding of America. They couldn't be more wrong. The founding fathers did not create a Christian nation. They were not Christlike and, therefore, they did not reflect Christlikeness in their creation. True Christian principles are not reflected in the laws enacted under the founding fathers. They did not enact pacifism. They did not enact giving and sharing all freely. They did not create a social order where each is the servant, but rather where they were served, even with slaves. What is more, the difference between real Christianity and the churches professing human precepts and traditions as God's was not lost on all the founding fathers.
There were founding fathers who hated the organized religion calling itself Christianity: The organized historical churches of the states of Europe and the Anglican Church (Episcopal Church in America), of course, since The founders were of English extraction. They did not like it that those churches (and the temporal governments those churches had often controlled and vice versa) were confused with what many of those founders thought (hazily) were the real precepts of God or teachings of Jesus. Those churches certainly had gotten it wrong as evidenced by their fruit. Even those churches that were closer to the kingdom of God, nevertheless, were not, and still are not, willing to shine the light into the world, as Jesus called upon his followers to do. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16). Today, the super patriots of America still confuse, on one hand, American temporal power and human-traditions-based churches with, on the other hand, the original unified, all-things-in-common church and real Christian precepts.
We must not forget that many of these founding fathers were landed gentry and businessmen. They were not interested in sharing. They were capitalists and men of war. They chose what they saw as best for their personal estates. They asserted themselves against the equally wrong ostensible divine right of the crown. They allowed for legalized slavery for the sake of their profits and to be catered to at their whim. They allowed for the unfair and unequal treatment of the Indians whom many of The founders regarded as an inferior race, which was never the case. Self-interest in the attainment of property that could not arbitrarily or undemocratically (without the representation of the landed gentry and commercial business owners of America) be taken by the crown was a prime motive. They did not wish to be treated as second-class citizens relative to the propertied aristocracy and budding commercial interests of England. That took them only so far in the direction of mundane freedom and nowhere near the real (divine) liberty for all that comes of being free of the domination of covetousness and other evils.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
In a letter to one William Short written in 1820, Jefferson wrote the following:
There are, I acknowledge, passages [Gospel passages] not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object [Jesus's object] was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being [God] of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
Now, here is Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the founding father chosen by the other founders to author their Declaration of Independence, saying horrific things against God's name. He was not discerning. God is not "cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." That's the Satanic spirit, not the spirit of our Father in heaven. Jefferson filtered Jesus through a Deist's lens, a secular humanist's lens that denies the power of God when not tested but believed. How can anyone imagine that America was founded upon Christianity under such circumstances?
Jefferson is nearly deified in the American culture. There is the Jefferson Memorial in the nation's capital dedicated to reverencing him. It is truly a temple building. We are encouraged by the government to feel dwarfed. We are meant to feel an unquestioning obligation to agree with Jefferson's sentiments. We are to kneel, at least internally, in awe of his genius and until the not to distant past, taken-for-granted high moral standards, etc. How can true Christians split their loyalty between Jefferson and Jesus?
Of course, Jefferson was referring to the God of Moses and the Old Testament. Regardless, Jesus himself said that the God of Abraham was Jesus's Father in heaven. Also, from the quote of Jefferson immediately above, we see Jefferson ascribed objectionable positions to Jesus.
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High. (Daniel 7:25).
And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. (Revelation 13:6).
What spirit was Jefferson revealing? Jefferson disbelieved in what are called the miracle acts of Jesus. He said that the disciples of Jesus who walked with Jesus and handed down the teachings and wrote of the miracles were all abject liars. Now, Jefferson was fond of his own reasoning ability; however, he imagines that people dedicated more so than any others to following the perfect teachings of righteousness as given by God our Father through Jesus Christ would be the most egregious liars in the history of the world.
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever.
With that last quote, Jefferson was simply being as consistent as he was able with the Constitution of the United States of America in spirit and letter. That word "support" in that last quote, in order not to be hypocritically applied, means that no tax money may be used or directed in anyway that furthers religious worship, places, or ministries. That consistent concept runs contrary to what the Bush-43 administration is doing with its tax-dollar funding of religion: Faith-based initiative. Using tax dollars that people have no choice but to pay or face fines, interest, and even imprisonment is compelled support, for without such support, those religious ministries receiving such would not be furthered as they are with such support. With those tax dollars, religions are governmentally contracted welfare-service providers. They are acting on behalf of the government and in the name of their religious faith. In such cases, welfare recipients become captive audiences for the trappings and messages of the given religion. Citizens who do not want their tax dollars directed toward particular faiths or any of what the government is calling a faith-based organization, are, nevertheless, compelled to support the ministries of those faiths, since those faiths are, in fact, when giving such services, ministering to the recipients. It is unavoidable logic. In addition, the faiths may hire and fire solely on account of the faith of the employee. Therefore, coerced, tax-payer money is used for religious-employment discrimination.
Now, isn't this the exact same logic the so-called conservative Christians have used concerning tax-assisted abortions? The rightwing doesn't want its tax dollars to be used for abortion. They don't want to be forced to help pay for things they don't want. They take that stand on religious grounds. Well, how can they then turn around and send tax dollars to religions without being hypocritical? They can't. Other people don't want to be forced to support religions under the guise of a faith-based initiative by the government. They see it as a transfer of wealth from them to only those few religions acceptable to the government. This is why separation of church and state doesn't work.
A real Christian, who is necessarily a pacifist, doesn't want to support war-making and doesn't want to support religions that teach war and other such anti-Jesus ideas. The US has created an impossible situation. That's why it is headed for disaster.
The founding fathers of the US did not create a system of genius. They put a bandage on a malignant cancer: Lust. They tried to create a union between and among the incompatible. You cannot unite Sodom and spiritual Zion for instance and expect such a superficial union to work and last.
We mention this to show the hypocrisy all the way around. We do not support the separation of God and state. It is falsehood. We support the unforced conflation of all. The problem has always been with the incorrect understanding of God. God is unselfishness. The knowledge of unselfishness is the knowledge of God. Doing unselfishness is doing godliness. The only system that works is unselfishness. No state can succeed by separating itself from unselfishness. No state can succeed based upon selfishness. All states based upon selfishness will fall. Heaven is the state of unselfishness and is the only eternal state. The only constitution that will ever work is the first and great commandment and the second like it, both kept consistently down to the smallest detail people are able to grasp.
We have started out with Jefferson here. He made himself central to the founding, non-humanitarian type humanistic principles of America. He and most of the other main founders were sons of the Enlightenment and Renaissance before it. Unfortunately, that brand of humanism is ultimately rooted in a willful, selfish attitude. In the end, it wants what it wants regardless of the needs of others. This is not to say that human beings are worthless, far from it. Jesus valued human beings. He mentioned how humans are worth more than many sparrows and other birds, all of which God feeds and covers, etc. Humanism, per se, that places value upon human beings is not at odds with Jesus when that humanism is of the divine-humanitarian variety: The true liberal variety. It is where those of humanism begin to place all value on human beings and deny God that there becomes a major point of departure.
We are not going to say much about Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati. The Illuminati was, among other things, Deism. It was humanism and more. It was a negative reaction to the hierarchical errors of the Jesuits who trained Weishaupt. It was influenced by, and influenced in return, the so-called Enlightenment period. We've spoken at some length about Thomas Jefferson and other Deists. We've written about the influence of humanists notions, meaning here notion absent the idea of an active, living, directly involved God-spirit. We will say though that the secret aspects and the ceremonial aspects of the Illuminati and how those things still figure into other secret societies and ceremonies, etc., with some degree of continuity with the original Illuminati, and all prior humanism for that matter, do have a direct influence upon the souls who partook and still partake on any level and that that influence, contrary to Jefferson's statements in Jefferson's letter to the reverend James Madison of January 31, 1800, concerning Weishaupt to the contrary, are decidedly antichrist even though many of the teachings of the church in power at Weishaupt's time were also decidedly in error.
It is a mistake for people to be members in these absolutely non-Christian secret societies, regardless of how harmless the membership imagines those societies to be. No matter how lightly members take such things, letting such things in has the impact of practicing the heart, training the heart, conditioning the soul in ways contrary to what will be needed, and is needed, to do righteousness always. That is born out by the fact that such secret societies have never, and cannot, produce the real bounty as looked for by Isaiah and Jesus.
The founding fathers had an opportunity to create something vastly superior to what has resulted. This society is, after all, the fruit of their endeavor, not God's. If it had been divinely inspired, they would have followed Jesus.
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. — Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine was one of the greatest stimulants for violent revolution. Power and wealth were fine to Paine provided they were not despotic as he defined despotism. He could not rightfully divide the word of truth from his position.
Jefferson and Paine: Confusing the apostate with Christianity
Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were not writing of the God of Jesus but were writing of the apostate denominations without even recognizing the difference. The context in which they were writing is controlling.
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ...to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Antichrist. — Thomas Jefferson
Here it becomes obvious that Jefferson was ridiculing the teachings and actions of the church hierarchy rather than the teachings of Jesus, per se, which he did not fully understand and, in fact, by Jesus's standard, hated. This makes clear the importance of knowing the context in which something was written or spoken. It is also important to know the meanings or connotations of the words as used. This applies to the words of Jesus of course, as I have demonstrated elsewhere in this work.
…all the principles of science are of Divine origin….the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. — Thomas Paine
Here it also becomes obvious, in conjunction with the first quote of Paine above, that he held in great distain the teachings and actions of the prevailing organized Christian denominations and also the resulting backlash against God. The Roman church and later denominations had made a mess of things. As correctly stated by Jefferson (quoted above), they had done all sorts of evils in the name of Christ. This brought on the movement to prevent religious control of the state (the temporal, worldly power) so that the state's coercive or physical power could not legally be used to compel adherence to the human precepts of the given Christian denomination, primarily, or any religion or sect by extension.
In the minds of many, it was timely to take it even further, to separate, in their minds and the minds of the population in general, all things church-associated (including the real truth) from the power of reasoning (rationalism) or the power of experimental duplicability (scientific empiricism). They were so fed up with the corruption and abuses of the apostate churches that they disregarded whether they were throwing out the divine truth with the false traditions of those churches. They just dismissed God when they rid themselves of the hypocritical control of apostasy over the temporal state. They traded one problem for a different variety of the same fallen condition. They summarily dispensed with the truth that is the distinction between flawed human-only precepts being passed off by apostate clergy as Christian teaching versus divine, perfectly righteous precepts that were and are the teachings of Jesus. The illogical conclusion that the acceptance of divinity necessarily led to all the historical abuses by the churches was accepted as self-evident. This then led over time to science (absent God) becoming supreme in the schools. Paine saw this, albeit hazily.
He said, as quoted above, "all the principles of science are of Divine origin." This is teleological. Paine saw the self-evident design in natural phenomena. This was a common thread in the prevalent Deist thinking of the Enlightenment period. God was seen as a clockwork designer of the universe. God made the clock and wound it (the universe) up, so to speak, and let it just run without God's interaction. Reason only speaks to the Deist, claims the Deist. What a mistaken confinement of reasoning.
It is so-called reason, so-called because it fails to understand the emotions in terms of reality. The Deist cannot see the logic of the spirit of the first and great commandment and the second like it fulfilled in the revelation of Jesus. Yet, in this work, I have shown that very logic plainly and clearly. The Deist is confounded by that divine logic. He or she cannot grasp that all the law and prophets hang upon that spirit revealed so starkly by Jesus. One literally feels it. It is revealed through emotion as well as reason, etc. Emotion and reason become unified just as love, peace, and truth are all the same. Because the Deist's reasoning ability falls short of embracing the conflation of reason and emotion, the Deist assigns falsehood to the truth of the message of Jesus. Suddenly, Jesus lived his life based upon impossible fables. Yet, Jesus taught truisms in parables (analogies; allegories).
Either what Jesus put forth as truisms are valid or they are not. It is not simply a question of how those truisms were imparted. Either what is written in The Bible about Jesus was written by all liars or not. Why would liars die for righteousness? Whom do you trust?
The Deist cannot comprehend the sonship of one who has received the revelation. The Deist receives no such personal-relationship sense with God as a living, feeling being; therefore, to the Deist, God can have no son or sons or daughters. He or she is hung up upon the word "begat," seeing it in mere terms of sexual union and biological impregnation.
Why has the concept of this word been so narrowly confined down through the centuries? The Bible is not a mundane dictionary. The meaning of the word "begotten" concerning Jesus is understood from the entire context of The Bible and what comes to one from the Holy Spirit. It is huge. It is greater than sexual union and biological impregnation. It is not a point upon which to become hung up. It never has been. It has though been used, albeit subconsciously, as a point of major procrastination. It is a point of separation of those who will proceed on with the known work of God and those who will refuse to go any further until they comprehend all from God's perspective. It is part of the plan. It is part of the revelation. It is part of the prophecy. You see the separation process occurring concerning the Deists since they do not credit Jesus. They are leaving themselves out of the fold of sheep, acting as if the crucifixion was meaningless, without value.
The Deists become hung up when it comes time to accept miracles attributed to Jesus in The Bible. They can't accept miracles as being within reason. Some are just too irrational for them to accept they think. However, if one believes that people were miraculously cured by God because Jesus had that much faith, why would anyone become hung up upon any single miracle? We must be prepared to accept miracles while at the same time realizing that there have been, are, and will yet be, misguided and even unscrupulous people capable of altering scripture.
It is unreasonable to conclude that people would martyr themselves by the hundreds and thousands for real righteousness' sake but be liars at the same time. Where is the vaunted reasoning power of the Deists in their imagining that the disciples would stand to gain anything by making up a story that is the Gospel of Jesus? They lived in poverty giving and sharing all that came their way. Then they were killed for their efforts. Where is the selfish gain? It isn't there.
To imagine that every last bit of scripture is part of a vast multi-millennial conspiracy to control people by getting them to behave in righteousness is pure insanity. Without the order of righteousness, we have only hell, and hell is insane. How could those pursuing the opposite of hell be the liars? It defies reasoning.
At this point it would be wise to address the concept of conspiracy. There is a predominate sense that conspiracies are invariably ...continues... Click next page number below. [If you would like to see the full text on one page (helps with searching for text on the page), use the "No-Graphics Print Version".]
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)