PATRIOTIC IDOLATRY

Is Kirk Cameron Demonstrating the Compromise that Results from Patriotic Idolatry?

 

By Erin Benziger ∙ 21 September 2012 ∙ In Opinion ∙ Bookmark permalink

 

 

Kirk Cameron is best remembered for his role as Mike Seaver in the 1980s sitcom, Growing Pains. Today he is known as a Christian evangelist with Way of the Master and even more recently, Cameron is recognized for his movie, Monumental, and his persistent urgings for Americans to return to their alleged Christian roots.
Monumental stirred a firestorm of reactions among evangelicals. Many criticized Cameron and the film for its inclusion of Mormon Glenn Beck and controversial historian David Barton. Others who are more involved in the movement to ‘save America’ praised the work in spite of what some deemed to be religious compromise.
Now, Cameron once again has sparked a controversy with his latest endorsement of Glenn Beck on his Facebook page. Cameron writes:

Glenn Beck kindly and enthusiastically helped get the word out about my new film MONUMENTAL, and now I would like to tell you about a hilarious new project from him!
NCM Fathom Events, Mercury Radio Arts and The Blaze Present Glenn Beck Unelectable 2012 in select movie theaters nationwide — live tomorrow night, September 20, 2012 with a second showing on Tuesday, September 25, 2012.
Don’t miss Glenn as he squares off in this mock presidential debate.
Source

This announcement launched a stream of comments (151 as of this writing) both in defense and criticism of this latest partnering of Cameron with Mormon Glenn Beck. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate of these is one that reads,

Mormons are definitely Christians. You are more than welcome to check out http://mormon.org/jesus-christ – it will answer any question about what Mormons believe! Besides, I love that Kirk is cool with being friends with people that don’t believe exactly what he believes. That, to me, is truly being a Christian. Source

As has been demonstrated on CRN’s own Mormonism research page, the differences between Christianity and Mormonism are many. The religion of Mormonism teaches a false and damning gospel. Of course, one could argue that Kirk Cameron did not himself make the above statement, nor has he agreed with it. Nevertheless, this is the type of conversation that now is ensuing on the Facebook wall of evangelical Christian Kirk Cameron. How misleading it is to have individuals claiming that Mormonism is the same as Christianity, and yet, as of this writing, there has been no correction from Cameron.
This reality grieved some to the point of asking Cameron to step down from his role at Way of the Master until or unless he repents of his promotion of and association with Glenn Beck. Christine Pack of Sola Sisters would write,

Tremendous confusion is being sown among the body by Kirk’s continued alliance with Mormon Glenn Beck. Does it matter to Kirk that some people here on his FB wall are now insisting that Mormons are Christians? If he can’t take responsibility for his own FB wall, and he allows that confusion to stand, he needs to resign from Way of the Master and step down from his role as an evangelist for the Christian faith. Source

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Cameron, along with co-host and fellow evangelist Ray Comfort, actually have taught against Mormonism on their Way of the Master television show.
Indeed, it was one thing several months ago for Kirk Cameron to accept the endorsement of Glenn Beck for his movie, Monumental. It is quite another for Cameron actually to endorse Glenn Beck, which is what he seems to now be doing. At this point one must wonder if 2 Corinthians 6:14–16 begins to take relevance.
Another comment from a concerned individual reads as follows:

Kirk, please, I beg you. You are undermining the gospel by your partnership and promotion of Glenn Beck and his projects. The gospel is greater and more important than America. America will pass away. It is temporary, but God’s Word and His gospel is forever. Please. Look at all the people on this thread who have no idea. You are influencing them in a bad way. Source

This person seems to have identified the problem precisely. What was demonstrated in Cameron’s movie, and what he has consistently been preaching in recent months, is the importance of America to return to what he believes are its Christian roots. Yet, could such a focus be perceived as patriotic idolatry? Speaking at the 2012 Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. last Friday, the Christian Post notes that Cameron

said America can get out of the “mess” by returning to the “original factory settings,” which involves listening to the Founding Fathers who relied on wisdom that comes from faith in God and His Word. Source

Is this really the answer? Why not turn directly to God’s Word? Further, were America’s “original factory settings” truly Christian as Cameron alleges? In a conversation with Dr. Al Mohler, Gregg Frazer, professor and author of the book, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution, discussed his research of America’s founding fathers. Speaking here about John Adams, Frazer noted:

John Adams, I argue, is sort of the quintessential theistic rationalist. That is, he wrote the most about theology of any of the key founders and studied the most. He read any and all theology that he could find around the world and he wrote the most about it and revealed his own views the most, and it’s really quite shocking what he came up with. He fundamentally denied basically all the fundamental tenants of the faith. He was raised in a Calvinist community; although, and again this is where denominational affiliations can get you in trouble, his church was listed as Congregationalist and they kept that name, but the church turned Unitarian when he was a young man, and so just the label Congregationalist can get you sort of off-track. But he denied the deity of Christ; he denied the Trinity; he denied the atonement. He actually said what I think is the most striking statement of all the things that I’ve found in all of my study, which was in his explaining his opposition to the Trinity, he actually said that if he were standing on Mount Sinai with Moses, where God gives revelation, and God Himself told him that the Trinity was true, he said he wouldn’t believe it.
He referred to the deity of Christ and the atonement as absurdities, talked about the fabrication of the Christian Trinity. He talked about the incarnation and said it has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity—the belief in an eternal self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient Author of this stupendous universe suffering on a cross—says that that’s the source of most of the problems in Christianity. Speaking of the Bible, he said that philosophy is the original revelation of the Creator to His creature, and no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it, so philosophy trumps the Bible.
Source

If America’s “original factory settings” were not actually Christian, then Kirk Cameron’s admonition for the country to return to these is erroneous and potentially dangerous. It is not the job of the Christian to moralize his country. The Facebook comment quoted above noted a fact of far greater importance: America is temporary. It will pass away. The Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, however, will not. These are eternal.
Where, then, ought the Christian set his sights? Not on a country made of men, but on Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:2) and His eternal kingdom. Those whose focus remains fixed on America, her financial failings and her moral pitfalls find themselves engaging in patriotic idolatry. How does one “get out of that mess”? Repent, remember and return to the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the only true hope.

What Did America's Founders Really Believe? A Conversation with Historian Gregg Frazer Transcript

What Did America's Founders Really Believe?

A Conversation with Historian Gregg Frazer Transcript

 

Monday, September 10, 2012

 

Gregg Frazer, Author, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution

Thinking in Public

September 10, 2012

 

Mohler: This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them. I'm Albert Mohler, your host and president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
The question of the religious convictions and the theological ideas of America's founding generation continue to reverberate in very contemporary controversy. And no one's better able to help us to interpret that controversy than my guest today, Professor Gregg Frazer, who is a professor of history at The Master's College in California. Professor Frazer holds a Ph.D. degree from Claremont Graduate University.

Professor Frazer, welcome to Thinking in Public.
Frazer: Thank you; glad to be here.

Mohler: Your new book, entitled The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution, published by the University of Kansas Press, seems to be a particularly well-timed book, given so many of the controversies that have emerged in evangelical circles even in just the last several weeks. But a project like this goes way back, in terms of your planning and interest. How did you come to write this book?

Frazer: Well, I've been interested in the subject of the religious beliefs of the founders for over 30 years. As I actually explain in the preface to the book, some 35 years ago, I was sitting in an audience listening to Peter Marshall and David Manuel talk about the light and the glory and trying to make a case for United States being established as a Christian nation, and, as an historian, I just didn't think it sounded right. I thought that there were significant problems, and that launched me into 30 years really of studying this. And then when it came time to do a doctoral dissertation, that's what I ended up doing as my doctoral dissertation, and that launched into, eventually, the book.

Click here for complete article:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/10/what-did-america%E2%80%99s-founders-really-believe-a-conversation-with-historian-gregg-frazer-transcript/

David Barton ... Telling Lies about Jefferson

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ - Colossians 2:8

David Barton (self professed Christian and historian) has recently published a book entitled "The Jefferson Lies".  Discerning readers only need to look at who composed the foreword (none other than LDS Mormon Glenn Beck) to know what "lies" ahead of them as the thumb through the pages.  I once admired and looked up to David for his "historical perspective" and his deep admiration for the founding of our nation.  Admittedly, I was caught up in the romance of his mythology and worse, I thought he was biblical.  Then I started to READ for myself and began to research the "historical evidence" that David gave in his presentations ... what I fool I had been!  I quickly came to learn that David was only giving half the story ... And, the side of the story that he was proclaiming - was dramatically out of context.  With the "The Jefferson Lies", Barton does his magic to portray Thomas Jefferson as a Christian ... something that is clearly NOT TRUE!

The bottom-line for me ... I can no longer sit back and listen to David Barton and the lies he is weaving (and has already weaved) within our churches. Not only is Barton's message devastating ... his target audience, which are made up of Evangelical Christians, are hanging on his every word and for the most part buying into his false view of history. If you doubt what I just said, answer this question - what will be the largest group to purchase Barton's latest book?  I am sure many home school families already have it in their libraries and are devouring its contents to teach to countless unaware and trusting children - what a shame! 

What convicted me the most has been our laziness (as a Christian community) regarding United States history.  We took what David Barton said as gospel and for the most part ... never really studied or researched what he said in context.  With blind faith, we opened our doors and let him speak from our pulpits - that mistake is on us and we must take responsibility for it - And, promise to be dilligent to speak out against false teaching ... (Acts 17:11)

As I compose this post my mind is racing ... I do not know where to start, what to say or what direction to lead you???  The lies and misdirection(s) are numerous and in no way could be covered in one post on a simple blog.  Here is my plea - Churches stop having this man occupy your pulpits and present to your congregations ... He is a wolf that has been let loose in the pasture.  He is deceiving people by the thousands and I can no longer sit on the sideline and watch .... You shouldn't either!

Think about this for a second ... We (the Christian/Conservative community) have sat and listened to David Barton for years.  We have been mezmorized by his smooth delivery regarding the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and how it all goes back to the scripture.  We fell in love with the story and never bothered to get serious about researching his claims for ourselves - BUT, the un-believing world did AND they knew that for the most-part, we were wrong !!!!! 

Ladies and Gentlemen, if we cannot get our history correct ... how in the world can we expect them to believe us when we proclaim Christ and Him crucified ?????

At this point, I still have many unanswered questions ... I am struggling with feelings of resentment toward Barton, but I also must sift through many feelings of shame due to the fact that I was once deceived and proclaimed his message to people that trusted my opinion ... for that I am sorry!  Over the next few weeks I will be diligently researching many things related to Barton and his view of history - WILL YOU DO THE SAME?  In the meantime, I have provided some "nuggets" that might jump start your research ... I hope they are useful ....

1. David Barton Lies About Jesus and Taxes - Fighting for the Faith / Chris Rosebrough

(listener note ... go to 41:21 of the podcast ... segment begins at 41:21 thru 1:02:25)

2.  The Christian Advocate by Ashbel Green (pgs 78, 135, 194, 246 and 305) .... Green was in the inner circle of the Founding Father's.  Green was also an outspoken opponent of the views of one Thomas Jefferson - Barton never gives his audience the perspective of Green ... why not?

3. Fox News Report ... Easter Sunday 2012 ... Jefferson denies the Resurrection - click here

4. GBTV - The Jefferson Lies w/David Barton - click here

5. Warren Throckmorton - GBTV Follow-Up - The Jefferson Lies w/David Barton - click here

• Barton Spins Jefferson Lies - click here
• Barton Spins Jefferson Lies - Part 2 - click here
• Warren Throckmorton - David Barton Page - click here

6. "The Jefferson Bible" .... view it here

7. Chris Pinto - Noise of Thunder Radio - Radio Archives ... The Jefferson Lies - click here

8. Chris Pinto - Noise of Thunder Radio - Articles ... The Founding Fathers - click here

9. Chris Pinto - Adullam Films - Documentary ... Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers - click here

(scroll to 1:45:26 in the film ...)

10. WVW - Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto - The Jefferson Lies/Book Review - P1 - click here

    WVW - Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto - The Jefferson Lies/Book Review - P2 - click here

11. Library of Congress ... read the letters of Jefferson in context - The Jefferson Papers

DAVID BARTON - Black Box Warning!

Whenever a pharmaceutical agent has serious health risks, the FDA gives the drug a "black-box warning". This warning does not mean that the drug is no longer effective, but the consumer needs to be made aware of the risks. With that said and after much research, I feel that we need to put a "black-box warning" on the views of one David Barton and his Wallbuilders ministry. I understand that the above statement may come as a shock to many, but if we are striving to be biblical we must analyze and evaluate all statements, claims and ministries through the lens of scripture.

David Barton and his Wallbuilders ministry, have done some very valuable things when it comes to getting people excited about American history. As a former history teacher, I can appreciate anyone who values the origins of ideas, movements and peoples. I must admit, I was drawn to David and his ministry, I soaked up everything he had to say and took it as truth. I interjected it into my classroom; I allowed it to shape my beliefs and philosophy regarding the United States and even taught it in Biblical Worldview classes. So, it is with a tremendous broken heart that I share what is going on with David and warn the true church about the dangers of his philosophies. Questions should arise for discerning believers when a leading Christian voice joins arms with a Mormon for the sake of patriotism.

Let’s remind ourselves that Beck is not a naive Mormon follower. He is a "temple Mormon", which is something that is not offered or easily accessed by your common LDS member. Beck talks passionately about his conversion - you can view it for yourself here – (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpeolBTKIo).  Mormon(s) do not worship the God of the Bible, they believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, and believe in works righteousness just to name a few. Many Christians were willing to ignore Beck's belief system because they agreed with his politics. I personally know people who traveled to Washington D.C. last summer to attend his "Restoring Honor Rally" in which you saw Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians all locking arms with a Mormon in the name of patriotism. People also saw a new "Black Robe Regiment" introduced, this new formulation of religious leaders was headed by none other than David Barton.

Barton and Beck have become in-separable over the last 18 months. During that time Barton has appeared on Beck's television and radio programs numerous times for the sake of re-educating the public our America's founding. (Watch for yourself by clicking on video clip #1, video clip #2, video clip #3, video clip #4 and video clip #5) Since appearing with Beck, Barton has become a best-selling author and his organization has gained global recognition. Most recently, Barton traveled with Beck to Israel for the Restoring Courage Rally - in which he shared the stage with Beck, John Hagee, and many others. It is important to keep in mind, that a Christian’s purpose for traveling to Israel is much different than that of a Mormon - Considering the fact that Mormons believe that they are the true Jews. So, we must ask ourselves - why was a leading Christian voice over in Israel with the leading Mormon figure and a pastor who believes that Jews do not need to be given the Gospel?

One of the more disturbing events that has occurred over the past weeks is when Barton and Beck traveled to a Baptist Church in Texas. At this church, both Barton and Beck spoke to the congregation. At the conclusion of Beck's presentation (in which he talked about "working the atonement") he gave an alter call to receive Jesus - 120 people came forward that day under the prompting of Beck .... this is serious and we must take note, listen below as Barton defends Beck's "Christianity" ....

• Link #1
• Link #2
• Link #3
• Article #4

Barton has also found himself at the center of "The Response" - a prayer rally put on by presidential hopeful Rick Perry of Texas. On the surface it seems that a prayer rally for our nation would be a good thing. After all, Perry was there with Tony Perkins, James and Shirley Dobson, and Tim and Don Wildmon. You may be interested to know who also was in attendance - individuals like Mike Bickle of IHOP, an organization that claims to receive new revelations from God. IHOP, an off-shoot of the old Kansas City Prophet Movement, is also closely connected with what is known as the New Apostolic Reformation and Joel's Army ... all of which are un-biblical to the core. Cindy Jacobs, a woman who claims to be a modern day prophet-ess, and many other "Word of Faith" leaders were also in attendance and yes David Barton took center stage at one point in time.

• Article #1 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/30/1021672/-Critics-of-dominionism-no-longer-welcome-at-American-Family-Association
• Article #2 http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/09/some_evangelica_1.html
• Article #3 http://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/140946482/apostolic-leader-weighs-religions-role-in-politics

Lastly and most importantly, many questions have arisen over Barton's view of American history. Discerning Christians across the country are beginning to research some of Barton's claims for themselves and are discovering some disturbing trends. Barton passionately defends the "Founding Fathers" and their ideals - claiming that many of them were rooted in Christianity - And, it was because of their belief in God - that America was formed and blessed by God for some 200 years. In one of his most famous presentations, Barton pulls out a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in which they are discussing the Holy Ghost. Barton pulls a comment from the letter of Adams in which it seems that Adams is speaking of the Holy Ghost in a positive light - proving once and for all that he was a Christian. Review for yourself, the below clips from and about David Barton ….

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvAnZyVvs04http
• http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/05/24/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/
• http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/05/31/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-holy-ghost-letter/
• http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/newsletter/JohnAdamsWasHeReallyanEnemyofChristiansAddressingModernAcademicShallownes.pdf
• http://www.noiseofthunder.com/articles/2011/4/7/david-barton-historian-or-propogandist.html

But upon further examination of the letter in context, it reveals that Adams was mocking those who believe in the Holy Ghost ... not supporting it – watch a full length documentary regarding the “Hidden Faith of the Founders” by clicking here ...

Barton is in the midst of writing a new book about Thomas Jefferson. The book will no doubt try to paint Jefferson in a positive "Christian" light, but may we continue to keep in mind that Jefferson denied that Jesus was God and in his very own Bible (The Jefferson Bible) he cut out all the miracles, claiming impossibility. The more you dig into the belief system of the Founders - you find they were more interested in the Enlightenment - than they were proclaiming the Gospel. We must be on guard and watch for those who have crept in un-noticed. It is my prayer that men will repent of misleading the public, that Christians will become more discerning, and that the church will never raise a flag above the cross. One only needs to look to Germany during the time of WWII to be reminded of what could happen when NATIONALISM becomes the guiding principle for a nation. May you take the information presented here and research for yourself. Utilizing scripture as your guide, may you come to your own satisfactory conclusion.

David Barton: Deceiver or Deceived?

Adullam Films Update

by Chris Pinto

The anti-Republican website, Right Wing Watch recently featured an article on our newest film, “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” with the headline: “Bad News for Beck and Barton: the Founding Fathers Were Antichrists.”

The headline was based on the powerful information contained in the documentary, which reveals what the chief founders of the American Revolution actually believed about the Christian faith. To read the full article from Right Wing Watch, click here.

The Bible tells us that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast. As such, our documentary is not a diatribe into the works or deeds of the founders, as if to accuse them of some immoral acts. Instead, it is an examination of their FAITH. But what was their faith? What did these men actually believe about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ? Incredibly, men like Jefferson, Adams and others wrote extensively about Christian doctrine and the teachings of Scripture. But what most Bible believers are unaware of is that these men were radically anti-Christ. Unfortunately, many professing Christians seem to be abandoning the Gospel in favor of “conservative values” which allow for “all faiths” to be included that are willing to take a stand against abortion, gay marriage, and the general wave of liberalism in the country today. We have come to believe that this is a snare prepared by the devil to diminish the power of preaching the cross of Christ, and render ineffective the Church in our country.

Sadly, the devil’s tactic seems to be working, and the key instrument of the deception is the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Conservatives present these men as “angels of light” who are exalted more highly than any apostles or prophets in our country today, quoting their great swelling words as if they were equal to the record of Scripture. What is devastating and diabolical, is that the glow of “faith” said to emanate from these oracles is quite the opposite of what is presented in many churches. In short, their own letters prove that many of the founders hated Biblical Christianity and wanted to see the Gospel destroyed. The letters in question are beyond dispute and can be found among many collections of the Founders writings, and in the Library of Congress. They were not merely deists or agnostics or humanists (which we have come to believe are very deceptive terms) but were antichrists according to the Word of the Living God.

We have further come to believe that Christians who prefer to define these men in worldly terms (calling them “deists” or “theistic rationalists” etc.,) do no service to the Church or to the unbelieving world, since political correctness in matters of spiritual importance tends to lull the hearers into a place of uncertainty; whereas the holy scriptures give no uncertain sound as to how those who reject Christ are to be regarded.

“Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

The importance of this is seen in the reaction of those (even among believers) who become especially troubled at hearing that the Founders were “antichrists.” The initial thought is that such a term is too extreme. “Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say that they were anti-Christ,” is a common reply. “They just held to certain humanist ideas, and did not believe in the divinity of Christ.” Yes, but that is the spirit of antichrist. The name “Christ” is not merely the last name of the man Jesus, as if we might call him Jesus Jones or Jesus Johnson. The name “Christ” embodies the whole doctrine of who the promised Messiah is, according to the scriptures set forth by Moses and the prophets, with the witness of the apostles. This is why John in his second epistle to the Church tells us that one is “a deceiver and an antichrist” who “abides not in the doctrine of Christ.” (2 John 7, 9)

Furthermore, we also consider how Jesus said:“And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not … He that rejecteth me, and receivethnot my words, hath one that judgeth him: the wordthat I have spoken, the same shall judge him in thelast day.” (John 12:47-48)

When the Lord returns, He comes with a two-edged sword from His mouth, by which He smites the nations (Revelation 19:15). That sword from His mouth is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). In other words, when the Lord returns, He will judge the nations according to His Word – not according to secular terminology. Not according to the wisdom of man, or of the rulers of this age which comes to nothing (1 Corinthians 2:6). That is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers – it will ultimately come to nothing. One might just as soon invest in Enron stock as in the philosophies of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington. You will find prosperity for a while, but in the end you will be bankrupt, and only once it’s too late, realize that you have been lied to. This is the place our country is reaching even today, as the wicked leaven of “universalism” sown by the Founders through the U.S. Constitution seems to produce more tares than wheat in the fields of the American harvest.

It is our responsibility as believers to obey the Lord, to declare the wisdom of God, and teach men to observe all things that Jesus has commanded (Matthew 28:20), that through the words of God, men might know the truth.“For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 2:7)  If we accept that all who believe Christ are counted as “priests” under the New Covenant (1 Peter 2:9), then it is our responsibility to communicate the words that God has given us; to set forth the wisdom of God, not of man.“… we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth …” (1 Corinthians 2:13)

Our pastors tell us, “Well, the Founders spoke of God as Divine Providence, and they believed that God was active in the affairs of men. They were just influenced by the Enlightenment, and could not see Jesus as the Divine Son.” This is often offered as an apologetic to excuse their unbelief, and gives Christians (not to mention unbelievers) the false hope that perhaps these men went to heaven in spite of their rejection of the Gospel.


Again, such ambiguity is unknown in the New Testament: “Know ye not that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived …” (1 Cor. 6:9) “… when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power …” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9) For those who have not seen “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers,” I will present here some of the quotes that we show in the film. Here are some examples of things said by the key founders. First, from Thomas Paine, the man who is said to have inspired the Declaration of Independence:

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortous executions, the unrelenting vindictivenes, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we called it the word of a Demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind, and, for my part, I sincerly detest it …” (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, part first, 1852 edition, p. 19)

Next, from Thomas Jefferson, author if the Declaration of Independence:

“… where did we get the ten commandments? The book indeed gives them to us verbatim, but where did it get them? For itself tells us they were written by the finger of God on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses … But the whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it … we have a right to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine …” (Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814)

Concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ, Jefferson wrote:
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture … I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross … and leave the latter to the
stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the … first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” (Jefferson, letter to W. Short, April 13, 1820)

When Jefferson makes reference to separating “the gold from the dross,” he is referring to his so called Jefferson Bible, in which he literally cut out all references to the supernatural: the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His resurrection, etc. Jefferson elsewhere called the Book of Revelation “the ravings of a maniac.”

Then we have this testimony from Benjamin Franklin, who had this to say just a short time before his death. In fact, it is shown in this letter to Ezra Stiles (the President of Yale College at the time) that Franklin himself expected to die in the near future. Here is what he said:

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.” (Benjamin Franklin Letter, to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790)

Then we have this testimony from John Adams, who is probably most often seen as a Founder who believed in Christianity. But as we show in “Hidden Faith,” Adams’ faith in Christianity was like the faith of the Pharisees in Abraham and Moses. If they had really believed Abraham and Moses, they would have also believed Jesus. Likewise, if Adams really believed in the “Christian principles” he is so often quoted for, he would never have written these words to Thomas Jefferson:

“The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with … creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle (God) which has produced this boundless universe … came down to this little ball (the earth), to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.” (John Adams, Letter toThomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825, emphasis added)

Finally, we come to George Washington, who was certainly the most moderate of the Revolutionaries, and who was careful not to offend the religious beliefs of anyone. As a Freemason, Washington defined “God” with the traditional vaguery Masonry is known for, employing the name “Great Architect of the Universe” in his letters.

“I sincerely pray that the Great Architect of theUniverse may bless you and receive you hereafter into his immortal Temple.” (George Washington, Letter to the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, December 27, 1792)

What is interesting is that David Barton, who defends the idea of Washington as a Christian, says in his own writings that the god of Masonry is not the God of the Bible. Barton writes that in Christianity: “Only one God is worshipped – and that God is not the universalist deistic god that Masonry denotes as the ‘Great Architect of the Universe’ (G.A.O.T.U.)” (David Barton, The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers, p. 20)

Barton, while failing to acknowledge it, is inadvertently admitting that the “god” of George Washington was not at all the God of the Christian faith. Perhaps the most convicting testimonies come from Washington’s own pastors who ministered to him for more than 20 years. One of them (Bishop William White) said there was no evidence that Washington believed the Gospel; the other (Dr. Ashbel Green) said that Washington did not believe the Jewish-Christian revelation, while the opinion of the third, Dr. James Abercrombie was recorded by Dr. Bird Wilson this way:

“Long after Washington’s death, in reply to Dr.Wilson, who had interrogated him as to his illustrious auditor’s religious views, Dr. Abercrombie’s brief but emphatic answer was: ‘Sir, Washington was a Deist.’” (Six Historic Americans, by John E. Remsburg)

Forsaking GOD for the sake of a flag ....

CONFRONTING THE PATRIOTIC FAITH

By Christian J. Pinto - http://www.adullamfilms.com/

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither

hid, that shall not be known." (Luke 12:2)

Perhaps more dangerous than yoga, psychology, or any of the new age doctrines that have crept into modern churches, is the ongoing love affair that some believers have with patriotic Christianity. Many Christian leaders, who can easily spot the lies of the New Age movement, abandon all discernment when it comes to the history of America and the idea that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Yes, they are well able to recognize the kundalini serpent crawling up the spine of believers at the gym, but can't seem to figure out that the Washington monument is a pagan phallic symbol that glorifies a demonic entity. They are unable to discern that just because certain Freemasons wrote "Glory to God" on it does not make it a Christian icon.

Christians who live in America understand that we are soldiers of Christ, who are strangers and pilgrims upon the earth, and who happen to be stationed in a place called America. American Christians, on the other hand, believe that the United States represents the kingdom of God on earth, and their purpose is to promote American values and the revolutionary principles of democracy, rather than the message of life eternal. They will politely refrain from being too forward about such sensitive issues as heaven and hell; but will be bold to speak about freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. "I don't want to intrude my beliefs on yours," they say, "unless it comes to my Constitutional rights!" If their zeal for the Lord Jesus were equal to their love for America, we can only wonder what great things might be done for the sake of the truth. As believers living in America, we must ask: is the core message of Americanism, even at its best, really that of the Bible?


Church and State

If one studies these elite societies at any length, he will quickly realize that their religious views cannot be separated from their political machinations. Their insistence on a separation of church and state does not mean they want to separate religion from government. It means they want to separate The Church (i.e. Christianity) from the state. This is why they demand that all Christian icons (the cross, ten commandments, etc.) be removed from government buildings, seals, etc. Yet the pagan icons, such as the Statue of Liberty, the Eye of Horus, the Washington Monument, along with countless other celebrations of the occult religions are never threatened. Yes, the Ten Commandments must be taken away from in front of the courthouse, but the statue of the blindfolded Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, can remain unfettered. The message is clear: the devils can stay, but God must go.



The Founding Fathers of America

Many Christians are repeatedly told by their pastors, teachers and church leaders that America was founded as a Christian nation. This assertion would not be so bad if it were confined to the arrival of the Puritans at Plymouth, and the early development of the new world. If that were the case, it would be an accurate statement in this writer's opinion. It is very clear that the Puritan/Pilgrims who built the towns, cities and roads for the original 13 colonies did so as Bible believers who were establishing Christian communities.



The problem arises when one marks the foundation of our country at the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States. It is at this point where all bible believing Christians should be very wary, since the working of occult societies during this era was at an unprecedented height in history. Some historians even argue that you simply cannot understand the history of the world for the past few hundred years if you do not take these societies into account. Their members have been the planners, leaders, and engineers of a global agenda, one that they do not readily share with the rest of the world. More importantly, they often use "religion" as an instrument to manipulate the masses, their belief being that the end justifies the means.

For Christians, our concern should be not for their conspiracy to take over the world, which is simply the fulfillment of God's prophecies and proof that His Word is true. Rather, our concern must be their corruption of the faith of Christ from within our ranks. In the New Testament, Jude gives us this important exhortation:


"… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our
Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 3-4)

Notice that Jude is warning us that we must "contend" (i.e. fight) for the true faith because "certain men" whom he calls "ungodly" have crept into the church. Such warnings are found throughout the New Testament. Jesus warned of "ravening wolves" in "sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15), while Paul warned of "grievous wolves" who would not spare the flock (Acts 20:29), while Peter warned that such men would bring in "damnable heresies" (2 Peter 2:1) and would be denying the Lord, just as Jude confirms.

Sadly, all of the above warnings can be found among the chief Founders of the American Revolution, which will be shown in the following articles. The question is, are the Founders men who have crept into the church? The answer can only be "yes." Not only were these men involved in churches in their lifetimes, but even two centuries later, their names and philosophies are sounded regularly among the congregations of the Lord. Their influence is among us, as surely as if they lived and breathed at this very hour.

Consider this: when our Puritan fathers founded Harvard University in 1636, they set forth the motto: Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae which means "Truth for Christ and the Church." That was the original focus of Harvard and they had no problem stating it openly. Nearly four hundred years later, the motto has been shortened to: Veritas. Simply the word for "Truth." As with many things, "Christ and the Church" have been thrust out. But this is no accident, and is not a betrayal of the "original intent" of the Revolutionaries. On the contrary, it is exactly what they wanted. Yes, the Pilgrims would be turning in their graves, but they are separated from Jefferson, Adams and Franklin by more than a hundred years.

Taking America Back: but back to what?
The evidence will show that the troubles for Christianity in America did not begin when they took prayer out of schools in the 1960's. It began with the American Revolution. This is especially bad news for those who think we need to "get back to the founding fathers." George Washington and Thomas Jefferson do not represent the solution -- rather, they were the very beginning of the problem. But to understand this, you must first understand them.
 The Bible vs. Secular Terminology

It may be that the greatest single hindrance to discerning the truth about these men is that they are often defined – not by a Biblical standard – but by secular thinking. It is one thing for teachers and professors in universities to have such a view, but quite another for pastors and ministers in the church. Our first responsibility is to the Word of God and the preaching of the Gospel, not to promote secular philosophies and ideas.

It is often given out that certain founders were "deists" or "theists" or some other such thing. Unfortunately, such worldly terms are very misleading and only succeed in masking the truth. It reminds me of an interview I heard with a woman who said she represented a "Pregnancy Alternative Clinic," which was really an "Abortion Clinic." The words pregnancy alternative helped to soften the blow of what she was really promoting. So it is with those who refer to the founders as "non-religious" or "free-thinkers" etc. It does not represent the Biblical point of view, which is of great concern since Jesus said:

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Ultimately, all men will be judged according to the Word of God; so our service toward mankind is to inform them of how their condition is viewed in the sight of God. Imagine a doctor telling a man that he has some "respiratory irregularity," when the truth is that he has lung cancer! Does the doctor do a service to a dying man by misleading him?

I am reminded of a popular TV show, "The Biggest Loser," about overweight people who are brought to a work out camp for weight loss. At some point, these people are made to sit down with a doctor, who often informs them that if they do not lose the necessary weight, they will die in a short time. Often, those who are given such news weep, and are shocked to hear the report. Nevertheless, it is that very shock that compels them to do something about it. A patient needs to know the dire nature of his condition so that he will be compelled to act. Where spiritual matters are concerned, we must seek the Great Physician for an examination of how the beliefs of deists and freethinkers should be viewed.

Judge Not?

Whenever discussions come up about the faith of others, some will often object and cry out that it is wrong to question. "If someone claims to believe God, or says they have faith in Christianity, we ought to take them at their word," they say. But according to the Bible, it is in no way wrong to examine the faith of those who claim to be Christians. If anything, the fault is in failing to exercise discernment. We are not expected to politely accept a confession, especially if we are given cause to doubt it. On the contrary, we are told:

"Beware of false prophets …" (Matthew 7:15)
"Take heed that no man deceive you …" (Matthew 24:4)
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God …" (1 John 4:1)

In the articles that follow, we will examine some of the beliefs of the key founding fathers, whose own words prove that these men were not Christians and had no intention of founding a Christian country. As you read the words of these men, consider how their so-called "faith" would be viewed in the sight of God. How does the Word of Life judge their testimonies? Remember this verse:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
(1 John 2:22)

George Washington's Farewell Address

Friends and Fellow-Citizens:


The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the Executive Government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.


I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.


The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this previous to the last election had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.


The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.


In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me, and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead; amidst appearances sometimes dubious; vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging; in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.


Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget as an encouragement to it your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.


The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.


For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.


But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.


The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.


While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined in the united mass of means and efforts cannot fail to find greater strength, greater resource, proportionately greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalries alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands.


In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminationsÑNorthern and Southern, Atlantic and WesternÑwhence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the Executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties – that with Great Britain and that with Spain – which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?


To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.


All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.


However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.


I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.


This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.


The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.


Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.


It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.


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. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.


It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.


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. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. 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. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.


It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?


Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.


As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in times of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.


Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?


In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill-will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.


So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.


As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.


The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.


Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.


Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by our justice, shall counsel.


Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?


It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.


Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.


Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.


In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish – that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good – that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism – this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.


How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.


In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.


After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined as far as should depend upon me to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.


The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.


The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.


The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.


Though, in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.


Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government – the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.