Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The death warrant

Published

on

On a hot August day in 1985, Dick Brewster and Rod Compagna were installing a security system in the historic Ladd-Gilman House in Exeter, N.H. The Gilman family home dated back to colonial days; the Gilman family included a delegate to the original Constitutional Convention, and at least two U.S. Senators.

While tearing out the attic floor, they ran across an original broadside of the Declaration of Independence, printed on July 4, 1776 by Philadelphia printer John Dunlap. Only 200 of these were made for distribution to the colonies. The New Hampshire copy reached the state on July 16. Time was of the essence, since the Continental Congress had committed an act of treason against the Crown, and in so doing had signed their own death warrants.

The original Declaration of Independence would have been of little value had it not been distributed far and wide. The act of signing the document was brave by those who drafted and approved it; but the truly revolutionary (and punishable by death) act was dispatching the copies. Making a statement without following it up with action was then, as it is now, useless.

To win freedom, America had to fight a long, bloody war against the British, who were not wont to losing colonies to upstart revolutionaries. We fought the British again in 1812. Then we let liberty die.

Abolitionist Republican Abraham Lincoln’s victory over populist Stephen A. Douglas (who ramrodded the Missouri Compromise through Congress) sealed the south’s economic fate. But liberty’s fate was sealed long before that.  A long, fruitless series of statements, compromises, heinous judicial miscarriages, and political deadlock killed freedom and liberty, such that by December 20, 1860, the State of South Carolina decided to leave the Union rather than suffer further political injury.

Nearly three years, and a half million deaths after southern secession, Lincoln asserted that the action of those men who fought upon the hallowed ground of Gettysburg would be able to resurrect the suffocated liberty of America.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Those 620,000 war dead in the Civil War died for the same death warrant that the Continental Congress signed.

The death warrant is still in effect 241 years later. Whenever liberty dies in the United States, men may be called upon to fight and die for its rebirth. Today we are seeing freedom take its last gasping breath in America. The 14th Amendment, written to guarantee liberty to slaves, has become a bush of thorns, from which a right to kill babies has emerged. It has also been used to justify overturning the sovereign will of free states to govern their own affairs as guaranteed by the Constitution with travesties such as Obergefell v. Hodges.

The basic right to be born and live as free moral agents, subservient to God and Natural Law alone has been abridged by a government withheld from absolute tyranny by only the smallest counterweight. And now that counterweight has broken.

Last year, we had a choice between two candidates, neither of whom was ideal (to be charitable). We now have a man leading America whose qualifications are no better than Enoch Poor‘s to lead troops at Breed’s Hill or Hugh Judson Kilpatrick‘s to command at Gettysburg.

Yet we must all pledge our sacred honor and our duty to defend our country, and its leaders.

If called upon to fight, we will because we have a duty to those who lived before us. When those signers of the Declaration of Independence signed their death warrants–and acted to send 200 copies to the furthest colonies to publicize the deed–240 years ago today, they also signed our death warrants.

Either Americans will answer when liberty calls from the grave, or America itself will die.

Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?

Published

on

By

A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.