Founding Fathers To Americans: Don’t Forget God

Many argue the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with U.S. law, that the depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments carved into the architectural structure of the U.S. Supreme Court building only represent one concept of several “early written laws.”

The marble frieze, “Justice the Guardian of Liberty,” located on the Court Building’s eastern pediment, depicts Moses as one of three Eastern law givers (Confucius to Moses’ left, Solon to his right). Some historians argue that by including Moses holding two blank tablets (the Ten Commandments) as part of the frieze, Moses represents only one of three Eastern civilizations whose laws primarily influenced American law.

Image credit:

Image credit:

Likewise, others argue that the South and North wall friezes inside the Court’s Chamber where the Justices rule do not emphasize Moses over any other lawgiver. Moses is only one of 18 lawgivers whose images are carved: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses (holding an inscribed tablet), Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

Yet, above the bench where the justices rule, carved on a marble relief are two men sitting on either side of a tablet on which I through X are carved. The allegorical figures represent “The Power of Government” and “The Majesty of the Law.” The numeric tablet represents the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

Entering the Court’s Chamber from the central hallway of the Supreme Court building are two oak doors on which there are carved two tablets with roman numerals I through X. These numeric tablets represent the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

The images of tablets with inscriptions all depict the same roman numerals I through X, not any other number or letter in any other typeface. The numbers specifically represent the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which are widely acknowledged and understood as interchangeable with the numbers one through ten (1-10).

Many oppose recognizing the Ten Commandments’ influence on American law. Many also demand that any public displays be removed from public property. Yet the majority of Americans oppose their removal. In fact, according to Pew Research polls, “Americans overwhelmingly support displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, with more than seven-in-ten saying they believe such displays are proper.”

Stephen McDowell of the Providence Foundation clarifies why:


McDowell surveyed and found numerous biblical inscriptions on government buildings from the Library of Congress, to the U.S. Capitol, the National Archives, the Washington Monument, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and others.

Interestingly, despite public opposition, the National Park Service repositioned the Washington Monument’s metal cap on public display in order to block visitors from being able to read its inscription: Laus Deo (Praise be to God). It has not, however, covered or removed the blocks embedded in the inside walls of the structure on which numerous references to God are inscribed, including “Holiness to the Lord,” “Search the Scriptures,” “In God We Trust,” “The memory of the just are blessed,” and others.

George Washington undoubtedly would be appalled by the National Park Service’s actions. He himself actually insisted that America as a nation must do more than just publicly acknowledge God. He wrote a proclamation (published in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal on October 17, 1789) in which he emphasized:


John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and many other presidents concurred with Washington’s directive. They understood that public displays and public acknowledgements of God were not coercive measures. They were instructional expressions of free speech and free worship. National monuments served as reminders, encouragements, and examples of American leaders who publicly emphasized the importance of valuing, relying upon, and honoring God.

No Founding Father argued that America as a nation should forget God. In fact, they argued the opposite.

Further still, they and their predecessors evidenced through their own actions that they opposed any legal prohibition of inscribing biblical verses or expressions on the very structures and monuments they themselves had commissioned to be built.

This column was first published by

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Case For Abandoning Political Parties

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Political parties in this country need to be abolished. It’s a fact. The bickering in Washington over “Obamacare” and the debt ceiling, as well as much of the gridlock that has taken over Capitol Hill in recent years, has made that evident by now. We are fed up, and we know Washington hears it. But is Washington really listening? Do they truly hear the will of the people?

Maybe we have not been listening to Washington. George Washington, that is. The truth is that we abandoned the warnings of our great leaders, intentionally or unintentionally, a long time ago.  Papa George warned us about the danger inherent in party politics in his farewell address to the nation in 1796, and his words were clear:

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.

John Adams warned us too, in 1789:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

I like the more recent words of President Eisenhower (in 1956) the best:

If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

The human drive for power and to win at all costs motivates our leaders when it should be the drive to represent the people and make their lives better. Party politics is evil because it encourages competition; and as a result, our lives are not better. But what is even worse than us failing to listen to our greatest leaders is that our current leaders are failing to listen to us.

Throughout the government shutdown that just ended last week, we the people, Republicans and Democrats alike, rallied. We made it known in the media that we did not want political rivalries and ill will to be the reason that hard-working Americans who just want to earn a living were furloughed, services withheld, and our most treasured landmarks locked up.  But what makes the situation worse is that the world is failing too because, like it or not, the world economy depends heavily on the United States. When our economy is stable, so too is the world’s economy.

But Obama wouldn’t compromise, and neither would Boehner. Their desire to remain loyal to their party affiliations rather than the ones who matter most took over and would not rest until someone cried “uncle.”  Their egos took over; and we nearly defaulted on our loans, which everyone knew would mean trouble for a country and a world that is still trying to recover from the Second Great Depression.

Obama and Boehner have not been able to compromise on anything, and the sore on our stability as a nation will continue to fester when they are gone and others have taken over their positions. The political parties have locked horns and refuse to cooperate. It’s Republican versus Democrat. Someone has to win, and no one is willing to lose. It’s no longer about having legitimate debates, making arguments, and speedily legislating the affairs of the country in the best interest of the people.  It’s about winning.

With regard to the tired arguments for or against “Obamacare” that have been playing out in the press, both sides have valid arguments. The financial climate may not be adequate to cover the medical bills of every man, woman, and child; and it may never be adequate. But at the same time, how can we let those who are unemployed and can’t afford health care flounder? I don’t know who is right and who is wrong.  The reason our country is failing is not entirely anyone’s fault. The source of the gridlock on Capitol Hill is party politics. The sooner our elected leaders can shake off the shackles of their party affiliations and talk like adults rather than as children, the sooner the sore that is hurting our society will heal.


Adrienne Erin is a skeptical freelance writer who is fed up with the bickering between major parties no longer being about the welfare of the people. To see more of her work, check out this infographic about the world’s tallest buildings.


Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Losing Family, Losing God, Losing The Country

John Adams SC Losing Family, Losing God, Losing the Country

John Adams once said, to the chagrin of libertarians through the ages, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Indeed, many of the problems we see manifested in our nation today, from the refusal of the president and attorney general to enforce the laws of the land to the Supreme Court finding a right to sexual perversion, have their genesis in the fact that it has become déclassé among the self- described elites to look upon religion as anything other than a curious practice engaged in by proles.

How did we get to this point where we have a government that is fundamentally hostile to religion and religious expression? Where we have a president who repeatedly defines Freedom of Religion as a much more narrow Freedom of Worship?

In a new book called “How the West Really Lost God,” Hoover Institution Research Fellow Mary Eberstadt posits that we stopped becoming a religious people because we destroyed the family.

Don’t be fooled. What follows is not a book review.

Read More at Red State . By Streiff.

5 Questions For Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck 5 Questions For Glenn Beck

First, let me say that I think the world of Glenn Beck.  He is on my Mt. Rushmore of Conservative Heroes along with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and William F. Buckley, Jr. as the four men who have done the most to secure the republic in my lifetime.  One of the things that I love about Glenn is that he loves to learn as much, maybe even more, than he loves to teach.  As a matter of fact, while I think he approaches teaching as a duty, I suspect he actually finds it, at times, burdensome.

The Saturday before the reelection of Barack Obama, my wife and I had the chance to speak to Glenn Beck for a few moments and found him to be incredibly kind and very humble.  Since then, many things have changed in the country; and I thought to myself, if I had that chance again, what would I ask?

I do think Glenn is an honest man, and so I don’t think that he’d take the following as a challenge to his character; at least that is my hope.  So here goes:

ONE: If Gandhi or MLK Jr. were Chinese, would we even know their name?  

I’ve heard you say on a number of occasions that we should emulate MLK Jr. and Gandhi in their ideas of peaceful resistance to tyranny. But Glenn, isn’t it true that these two guys led successful movements because of who their opponents were even more than who they themselves were?  In other words, if Gandhi and Dr. King were in Tiananmen or even Tahrir Square leading peaceful protests, isn’t it more likely that we’d know them like we know “tank-guy,” as a nameless/faceless/voiceless victim?

Don’t take my word for it; take a trip for yourself to Gandhi’s house and regard the banner on the front veranda.  The one that sports the quote from Bertrand Russell: “It is doubtful that the efforts of the Mahatma would have succeeded except that he was appealing to the conscience of a Christianized people.”

When the evangelist Ravi Zacharias saw this sign, he was stunned by the irony that “the home of Gandhi, the pantheist, displayed a banner quoting Russell, the atheist, who said the former’s efforts would not have succeeded save for the theists.”

Now tell me, dear Glenn, do you believe that Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Eric Holder are closer to the worldview of the British Colonialists, the American segregationists, or the Red Chinese and the Muslim Brotherhood?  I’ll hang up now and wait for your answer.

TWO: What would you think of an Austrian or German man who in 1934 fantasized about killing his “leader?”

Would he be a paranoid, homicidal conspiracy nut or a visionary who just saw things quicker and clearer than Dietrich Bonhoeffer?  What if he thought the NAZI Party was not a legitimate party, was an enemy to the motherland, and needed to be fought against with all possible contingencies?  And what would be the difference between that man in 1934 and Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1941?

Simply put, do you disagree with John Adams when he wrote in A Defence of the Constitutions of Government, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.  But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many”?

THREE: If Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson were here today, what would they be saying, writing, planning, and doing? 

I think it’s doubtful that they’d be going to a “Tea-Party” golf outing.  I think these were more serious men.  These were the sons of Issachar.  Maybe you can ask David Barton — off the record of course.  And while you’re over at David’s, you can ask him about the real Thomas Jefferson, not the one that you’ve carefully crafted as a justification for being AWOL on the moral issues of our day.  Or to put it as a question:

FOUR: How’s your leg mending, and did you get your wallet back?  

When it comes to the Rainbow Crusaders and the scourge of abortion, Glenn is remarkably detached.  Somehow this is a Libertarian value, I suppose, and that’s his prerogative. But it does drive me a bit batty when he implies that our founders in general felt the same way and that Jefferson in particular would be, I don’t know, to the Left of Penn Jillette on the issue.

When it comes to same-sex marriage, Glenn consistently downplays sexual anarchy as a threat and quotes Jefferson as saying if “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg,” then it is, apparently, not a serious issue.  The problem with that is that Beck cannot possibly believe that.

Glenn is too smart to believe that!  Not to mention his close relationship to David Barton, who could easily “straighten” him out on the issue.  For that matter, Rabbi Lapin’s lesson on Baal should have had Glenn “butt-shifting” over his self-justification of apathy in the face of the greatest religious freedom issue of our day.  You see, Glenn has to completely “butch” history and reality to arrive there.

The quote by Jefferson was about atheists and pantheists, not about sexual perversion.  The full quote is, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Surely a historian of Glenn’s caliber knows that the guy who wrote a bill calling for the emasculation of homosexuals would probably side with those who believe that the issue is one that may break a few legs and pick a few pockets.  That’s right; Jefferson, like Washington, was convinced that homosexuality was a serious affront with serious consequences that shouldn’t be ignored.

I wonder if Catholic Charities would agree with Glenn, that the gay mafia hasn’t “broken their leg”?  I wonder if the photographers, the bakers, and the bed and breakfast owners who are being sued for not dancing to the tune of the alphabet mafia would think that their pocket has been picked?

A movement that exists by monitoring businesses and individuals for their beliefs and then threatens their livelihood certainly fits the Jefferson quote.  A movement that has forced Michael Savage and Dr. Laura off the air for merely holding an opposite view is certainly a threat to free speech and the free exercise of religion.  Can’t Glenn tell the difference between his gay friends and the “monster in our midst” that is the Gay-K-K?

While atheism and pantheism will never cause the doors of my church to be padlocked, the hate speech legislation sponsored and spurred on by the sin syndicate most certainly will.  By that time, do you think Glenn will take notice?  Maybe if he inclines his ear more to Pat and Stu or Rabbi Lapin and David Barton than he does to the Liberal-tarians.  Time will tell.

FIVE: Are you hiring? 

This may sound self-serving; but my radio show would rock your network, pal!  The Parson and The Cleaner at!  When do we start, boss?

Photo Credit: The Rocketeer (Creative Commons)


Five Things To Do Between Elections (Part 2)

fraud Five Things to do between elections  (Part 2)

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.”

-Alexander Fraser Tyler, “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”

Many of the biggest problems our country faces are not ones that we can rely on politicians to fix. The reason is that they often benefit from them. Ordinary people need to work between elections to change many of these. We need to do it between elections because everything that tries to fix a problem ends up in court, so any successes won’t materialize until after the next election.

We mentioned a bigger issue with regard to voting in the last article.

Is voting a right that belongs to everyone (citizenship is assumed)? Or is it a privilege with restrictions? Only two states allow felons to vote, so it is generally recognized that voting is a privilege and not an absolute right.

Originally in our country, the basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a “stake in society. Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote.”

These restrictions were gradually eliminated in our country, but our country is now experiencing something unthought-of in American history. About half of our country receives some form of government assistance. And just about half of our country does not pay any income taxes.

As people receive more things from the government, they become more dependent on the government. If it is a natural human tendency to go from accepting help to expecting help, how are people in this situation able to vote in a way that is best for the entire country?

Margaret Thatcher said that socialism doesn’t work because you always run out of other people’s money. We are not officially a socialistic country, but we are gradually relying on other people to take care of us rather than taking care of ourselves.

So when these people vote, they vote to benefit themselves at the expense of others. This will hurt our country in the long run. The issue of 18 year olds voting is the first step in insuring that voters are givers into the system rather than just takers.

I would even say that voting should be reserved for taxpayers period.

The fourth issue is voter ID laws. The only reason I can think of why people oppose this is that they know their party is benefitting from illegal votes. Do a google search for the things that require a photo ID in our country:

1) buy alcohol
2) buy cigarettes
3) open a bank account
4) apply for food stamps
5) apply for welfare
6) apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7) apply for unemployment or a job
8) rent/ buy a house, apply for a mortgage
9) drive/buy/rent a car
10) get on an airplane
11) get married
12) purchase a gun
13) adopt a pet
14) rent a hotel room
15) apply for a hunting/fishing license
16) buy a cell phone
17) visit a casino
18) pick up a prescription
19) hold a rally or protest
20) donate blood
21) buy an “M” rated video game
22) purchase nail polish at CVS
23) purchase certain cold medicines
24) cash a check

How do people even get along without a photo ID? How have they made it this far?

I don’t think it is coincidental that every state that had voter ID in the last national election voted the same way. The outcomes of our elections are far more important than any item in the above list, and there are huge incentives to be less than totally honest here.

Demand voter ID laws.

One more matter. Consider this very common quote from John Adams, our second President.

 . . . we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Just as in our first quote, people in a democracy (or republic) can vote the country broke for their individual gain, so too the leaders in a democracy (or republic) can vote themselves privileges and benefits that can ultimately harm the public good. Our government as set up requires a moral and religious people because the temptation for personal gain at the cost of everyone else is enormous.

A good example of this was with Obamacare, which Congress essentially exempted itself from and exempted others from in the attempt to gain votes. Cities and states are going broke over the benefits given to public sector employees.

When lawmakers make laws pertaining to themselves, experience has shown that the public interest is rarely served. They make laws for the rest of us, but they routinely exempt themselves from the laws’ effects.

There is an online petition going around today for a Congressional Reform Act of 2013. I think it is too encompassing, not allowing for unforeseen circumstances, but the point is valid. Laws should apply for everybody, including those who make them.

We can’t rely on our elected leaders to solve all our problems, especially when they are the cause of many of them. Ordinary people need to do more, say more, and act more to bring about these long needed changes.