App
The Anglo-American nations of Britain and America were founded on the moral precepts of the Bible. The British Empire was built on common law derived from the principles of the Torah, and the United States was founded by God-fearing men of faith who, despite their personal failings, possessed a great reverence for the Scriptures. Like a “city on a hill,” our English-speaking nations once shone as a moral beacon of hope in a dark world. But today, we are fast becoming a “byword” throughout the world (see Deuteronomy 28:37).
As this chapter will demonstrate, the Anglo-American peoples have forsaken their moral foundation—a foundation once based squarely on the Scriptures. Thus, curses—prophesied long ago as corrective punishment on a rebellious Israel—have begun to multiply and will soon overtake our nations. As God warns in Leviticus 26:25, He will indeed “avenge the quarrel of His covenant,” bringing sore punishment on modern Israel for her persistent violation of His laws—in particular, the Ten Commandments.
In order to understand God’s present judgment on America and Britain, we must first realize the stark contrast between how our forefathers viewed God and the Bible as compared to how today’s leaders view God and the Bible. As you will see, the difference is astonishing.
British Reliance on Scripture
Whether Catholic or Protestant, Britain has been nominally Christian for well over a thousand years. An early figure in the nation’s religious history was Alfred the Great (849–899 AD), who, as king, was able to secure victory over the Viking invasion of 871 AD that threatened to destroy Christianity just as it was beginning to flourish as the majority religion. Inspired by his success, Alfred created a new system of Christian education designed to reach the illiterate country people. It was the king’s hope that Christianity would begin to capture the imagination of the ordinary people. Known for his reverence for Scripture, Alfred “adopted the Ten Commandments and other selections from the Pentateuch, together with the Golden Rule … as the foundation of the early laws of England.”1
Later, the Norman Conquest of England (1066 AD) cemented the power of the Church of England. Throughout the Middle Ages, Christianity in Britain became central to the lives of ordinary people.
In 16th-century England, Catholicism—which had dominated the nation’s religious landscape for centuries—was beginning to face serious criticism from the common people as the Reformation gained momentum. Protestantism, however, was a minority faith, and no one seriously thought about England dropping Catholicism. But as fate would have it, King Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he could remarry and secure a male heir—but the Pope denied him permission. The king reacted by “divorcing” England from the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, Henry endorsed a few religious reforms so his decision did not appear to be driven by self-interest.
Eventually, after a brief but bloody return to Catholicism under Henry’s daughter, Mary I, England became predominantly Protestant. For the first time in Britain’s history, to be English was to be Protestant. Despite later turmoil caused by Catholic royalty, the 1689 Act of Toleration granted freedom of religious worship. The Church of England, though always the official state religion, had surrendered the idea of imposing a single faith on its people. (For more on the religious history of Britain, see Appendix 6.)
As the British Empire was rapidly expanding under Queen Victoria, people began to sense an awareness of God’s role in British history—and many began to sense a divine mission behind the Empire. For example, Lord Archibald Rosebery, British prime minister from 1894 to 1895, once spoke at Glasgow University about the British Empire. He said that even “the most cynical must see the finger of the divine” in the Empire’s formation, which, he added, resulted from the “supreme direction of the Almighty.”2 At times, other leaders have referred to the “manifest destiny” of the British—of their “right” and “duty” before God to serve mankind through the rule of the Empire.3
Such sentiments served to solidify religious devotion and a reliance on the Bible in the lives of many British citizens. One of these was Sir William Blackstone. Introduced in 1765, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were fundamental to the development of English common law and served as the premier legal reference for the nation. Of utmost importance was the fact that Blackstone’s work was based principally on the laws and precepts of the Bible. The Commentaries were crucial as well in the subsequent development of America’s legal system.4 Following British example, many early American colonies incorporated the entire text of the Ten Commandments into their legal code. Other passages of the Old Testament were copied in whole or in part into various legal documents.5
But today, modern psychology, new philosophies, and naturalistic worldviews—which have proliferated in Great Britain for more than a century—are taking center stage, leaving Christianity in serious decline. Now a breeding ground of Darwinian evolution and atheism, England has been falling away from its Christian heritage for generations. Moreover, as Appendix 8 brings out, Christianity may be facing virtual extinction in the United Kingdom.
America’s Biblical Roots
Today, it is considered “politically incorrect” to teach America’s Christian roots. While most Americans (about 85 percent) still identify themselves as Christians, America itself is now widely viewed as a post- Christian nation. As will be demonstrated, this apparent paradox is the result of a long process of cultural and ideological change—including a new, liberal approach to the idea of the “separation of church and state.”
What does it mean to be post-Christian? Essentially, it means that Christianity—or, more to the point, the Bible—no longer impacts American politics or culture as it once did. While almost all politicians are sworn into office with their hand conspicuously placed on the Holy Bible, they ignore it as the ultimate source of moral law. In the interests of political correctness, tolerance and moral relativism—which, as we will later see, all stem from multicultural ideology—Christian morals cannot be held as superior to any other religious view or set of principles, including those of secular atheism. Thus, the Bible—since it is the basis of Christianity, and Christianity is now viewed as just one religion among many in America—has been gutted of its power and authority as a tool for national leadership or as a standard for societal morality.
Without question, there is a growing bias against anything Christian. According to secularists, religion is fine as long as it remains private and does not spill over into the areas of morality, education or politics. It’s fine to read the Bible, go to church, or be a Christian. It’s fine to have conservative, biblical values (though, today, only a minority actually do). But don’t let those values impact national policies on school prayer, sexual conduct, the “right” of homosexuals to marry, or abortion on demand.
Today, in liberal American politics, “separation of church and state” means a government devoid of Judeo-Christian influence. But to argue that our founding fathers had just the opposite view—that the state was, in fact, to be governed by biblical principles—is to invite scorn and ridicule. In the view of our founders, “separation of church and state” meant that while the state (the federal government) would recognize the singular importance of Christianity, it was never to favor one particular church denomination above another—let alone attempt to impose a single religion on the people. This was precisely what the early colonists were attempting to avoid by coming to America—the enforcement of state-run religion as they had experienced under the Church of England. But to claim that religion was to have no part in the formation and administration of government is to misunderstand the intent of those who established this nation. The truth is, it was religion itself that gave birth to the colonies in America.
While today’s secular-oriented educational curriculum conveniently ignores this reality, America was clearly founded on biblically based values with the founders themselves being men of great faith. In his book The Case for America’s Christian Heritage, Gary DeMar writes: “America’s Christian roots run deep and wide throughout the landscape of our nation’s history. At every point in our nation’s past, America’s Christian heritage can be seen at nearly every turn through the voluminous historical records that have been painstakingly preserved.”6 Concerning these historical records, University of Houston political science professors Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman published a monumental, ten-year study in 1983 in which they surveyed over 15,000 documents written by America’s founding fathers between 1760 and 1805. They discovered that the Bible was, by far, the most cited source, comprising 34 percent of all quotations. In fact, the Bible was quoted four times more than any other source.7
Yet these historical records have been ignored when it comes to teaching future generations. Today’s mainstream programs of study—from grade school to high school—all but overlook our Christian heritage. Many in elite circles even deny the clear facts of our founders’ faith. Obviously, there are forces at work that want to project America as secular, irreligious. Why? Again, it gets back to the rejection of the Bible as the standard for moral values. As DeMar notes, America’s founders “shared a common religion and set of values. America’s earliest founders were self-professed Christians, and their founding documents expressed a belief in a Christian worldview.”8
Moreover, every colonial constitution acknowledged that God had a hand in their founding and development. Many later state constitutions were specifically Christian in their wording, and all of them were generally religious in tone (over time, such wording has been largely purged in the interests of “political correctness”).
Indeed, there is abundant historical evidence demonstrating that 1) our founding fathers looked to God as the source of their victory over the British in establishing nationhood; 2) they believed America’s abundant national blessings came as a result of divine providence; and 3) they prayerfully and humbly relied on the wisdom of the Scriptures to direct their steps. Here are just a few examples:
After the American colonies won their independence from Britain, George Washington, military commander-in-chief during the Revolutionary War, wrote a letter to the governors of the 13 states expressing his desire to return to private life. He closed the letter with this prayer: “I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside in His holy protection, [and] that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, [and] to entertain brotherly affection and love for one another … [and] that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that character, humility, and [peaceful] temper of the mind, which [are] the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion….”9 In a similar spirit, Samuel Adams—governor of Massachusetts and often acknowledged as the “Father of the American Revolution”—issued a state proclamation asking the people to pray “that the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.”10
In a letter to his wife on the day the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, who would go on to become the second U.S. president, wrote: “The general principles upon which the [founding] Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity … [which are] eternal and immutable…”11 Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, the 6th U.S. president, wrote: “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”12
With these notable examples, we can clearly see that the patriotism of America’s forefathers was undergirded by a strong Christian foundation. These were men of deep conviction and reliance on God. Moreover, they understood that a functioning, peaceful society must be founded not just on “law” in general, but on an ultimate principle, a higher moral code—such as provided in Scripture. Daniel Webster, senator from Massachusetts and U.S. Secretary of State from 1841 to 1843, wrote: “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion [and religion on the Bible]; if you destroy the [moral] foundation, the superstructure must fall.” Likewise, James Madison, 4th U.S. president and considered the father of the Bill of Rights, referred directly to the Ten Commandments as that moral basis: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”13
As we will see, the founding fathers’ commitment to the principles found in the Bible was central to America’s greatness—and it was this adherence to biblical morality that assured God’s continued favor. But today, with the Scriptures dismissed as irrelevant at the government and academic levels—and scarcely followed even by those claiming to be Christian—God has removed His favor and the nation has begun spiraling toward disaster.
Scholars who have honestly studied this subject cannot avoid the obvious: from the beginning, America’s values were firmly rooted in the Bible. For instance, a 1982 Newsweek article titled “How the Bible Made America” stated: “[For] centuries [the Bible] has exerted an unrivaled influence on American culture, politics and social life. Now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document, the source of [our founders’ belief in] … the United States as a special, sacred nation, a people called by God to establish a model society, a beacon to the world.”14 Time magazine wrote something similar in 1987: “[America] is the only country deliberately founded on a good idea. That good idea combines a commitment to man’s inalienable rights with the Calvinist [i.e., biblical] belief in an ultimate moral right and sinful man’s obligation to do good. These articles of faith, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, literally govern our lives today.”15
At the start of the American Revolution, 98 percent of Americans claimed to be Protestant (a mixture of Baptists, Quakers, Sabbatarians, Puritans, Independents, etc.) and 1.4 percent claimed to be Roman Catholic. Thus, over 99 percent were professing Christians! Representing the colony of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown….”16 Franklin also wrote: “I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proof I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men! And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this….”17
No doubt politicians today would be embarrassed to learn that all of the 55 delegates who forged the Constitution were “careful students of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and even though some did not belong to any Christian denomination, the teachings of Jesus were held in universal respect and admiration.”18
In more recent times, American leaders have reaffirmed America’s biblical foundation. In a 1911 address titled “The Bible and Progress,” Woodrow Wilson—a short time before he became the 28th American president—told his audience that “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”19 Calvin Coolidge, 30th U.S. president, said, “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings should cease to be practically universal in our country.”20
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. president, once said: “We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.”21 In a mid-Atlantic summit with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the darkest hours of World War II, Roosevelt asked the crew of an American warship to join him in a rousing chorus of the hymn “Onward, Christian Soldiers.”22 Can you imagine any American president making similar claims or requests today? Given the current atmosphere of anti-Christian bias and political correctness, he would be ridiculed by a hostile media and mocked by the academic elite!
Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe during World War II and 34th U.S. president, Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism.”23
In a 1954 interview with Time magazine, Earl Warren, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969, said America is “a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it….”24
But perhaps the most insightful view of how biblical morality played a key role in America’s founding comes from the French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. In 1831, de Tocqueville came to America to observe the new nation and its institutions. His conclusions, published in 1835 as Democracy in America, have been described as “comprehensive and penetrating” in analyzing the character of 19th-century American society. He wrote: “The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God…. Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same…. [T]here is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”25
As de Tocqueville brings out, it was not religion per se—or even Christianity itself—that made America morally strong. Rather, it was the almost universal respect for the biblical standard of God’s laws and commandments. To be sure, the reality of America’s biblical roots cannot be ignored. DeMar concludes that a good working definition of “Christian America” is “the sharing of common moral values that have been shaped with reference to the Bible.”26
Why is all of this important? These common moral values, based on the Bible, were fundamental in the development of America. Now, their loss will be the key to our judgment as a nation. Modern Joseph—Britain and America—is now under judgment. But God’s criterion for judgment is not “religion” per se; it does not hinge on denominationalism or on a specific doctrinal worldview—for America, even at its inception, was home to a variety of faiths (including the Jewish faith, which honors the moral teachings of the Old Testament). Rather, God’s judgment centers on how we as a people have lived—and are now living. We once had a common moral code of life based on the Bible. It did not matter if you were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or even non-religious. From its earliest days, America held to a common, recognized, and esteemed moral code summed up in the Ten Commandments.
Now, because of our foolish rejection of this biblical standard, we are being cursed right and left. Ultimately, it will mean our destruction as a nation.
The Decline of Biblical Morality
Post-war America possessed a clear sense of obligation or duty to the world. And there was no question about America’s “moral compass”— as it was based solidly on the Bible. As Dave Miller of Apologetics Press brings out: “The Bible was required reading in the public schools of America from before the beginning of the nation—and for two centuries thereafter up to the 1940s and 1950s. Indeed, the first book in the classroom was the Bible. It was the centerpiece of a child’s education: ‘Students learned how to read using the Bible. Much of the school day was devoted to memorizing and reciting passages from it, and passages were copied to learn penmanship.’ ” Moreover, “respect for the Bible as the Word of God was once the norm. [But the subsequent] pluralistic assault by the forces of political correctness on America’s Christian heritage has obscured this fact. America’s initial existence and future survival was originally seen by the Founders to be heavily, if not exclusively, dependent on the successful diffusion of the Bible throughout society.”27
Dr. Ben Carson—a retired surgeon turned politician—echoes this point of view in his recent book America the Beautiful: “When our nation was rising rapidly to the pinnacle of the world, we were not ashamed of our relationship with God. In fact, reading from the Bible was not only common, it was expected in early public schools. The founders wanted generally accepted religious values to be taught in our schools without favoring any particular denomination, but they never intended to exclude God from the classroom because they knew that you had to have something upon which to base your system of values. If we only believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, whose values do we use to govern society?”28
But in post-war America, change was on the horizon. Insidious forces were hard at work to radically alter American culture. The ideological origins of much of this change can be traced to America’s academic world. Throughout much of the Cold War—while most Americans were worrying about the prospect of a Soviet-initiated nuclear war—Russian-bred Marxistsocialistic influences were infiltrating American academia, poisoning the minds of a generation of young people. Moreover, there was a growing infatuation among educators with Darwinian evolution. Thus, a godless liberalism gradually emerged from America’s institutions of higher learning that in no small part set the stage for the nation’s slide into moral oblivion.
The resultant 1960s counterculture—generated largely by well-planned university uprisings—was all about legalizing drugs, abortion, and homosexuality; the promotion of radical feminism; and the elimination of censorship. Numerous extremist organizations were formed during this period, which today share this same agenda. Their strategy also remains the same: minimize (or ultimately eliminate) Christianity, the family unit, and the role of the White male.
Central to this attack on America’s moral and cultural foundation was the Civil Rights movement. While the achievement of “civil rights” for Black Americans was certainly good and right, it was not without hidden costs. In effect, the quest for “social equality” for Blacks spawned a variety of liberation movements—all under the misleading banner of “fairness and nondiscrimination.” Out of the Civil Rights movement came “black studies” in the colleges. The idea was that past exploitation of and injustice toward Blacks merited society’s special emphasis on Black cultural achievements. Thus, “black pride” and “black history” were born. But as David Kupelian notes in his book The Marketing of Evil, there was more going on behind the scenes. Mainstream Civil Rights focused on the idea that all men are created equal. This battle cry was, in effect, “hijacked by forces of the ’60s radical left.” Black pride, for example, was not about attaining equality for Blacks, it was about positioning America as a White racist nation. Rather than working for racial harmony, the veiled goal was to “indict America as a racist oppressor as a means to foment division, revolution, and societal transformation.”29
Radical activists were keen to the opportunity before them. Thus, riding on the coattails of the “successful” Civil Rights movement, other “liberation” movements quickly emerged: “equal rights” were demanded for gays and lesbians, along with special “rights” for women—such as the “right to choose” to abort a pregnancy as a matter of convenience.
In order to counter America’s fundamentally conservative outlook, such movements would need to marginalize Christianity and the Bible. Enter multiculturalism. Arising from the world of liberal academia, there has been no greater threat to America’s moral and cultural foundation than the one brought under the deceptive guise of multiculturalism. On the surface, the idea of studying the values and experiences of other cultures seems innocent enough. After all, we do need to enrich our understanding of the world and its peoples, right? But multiculturalism—as it has been promoted and employed in Anglo-American academic settings—is not about fostering a deeper understanding of other world cultures. Rather, multiculturalism has been used to promote other cultures as superior to and in opposition to Western culture. Ultimately, multiculturalism promotes all cultures as being equal—which, of necessity, means that all religions and all moral positions are equal.
In his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert Bork contends that multiculturalism was “fabricated by radicals” solely as “a philosophy of antagonism to America and the West”—as a central element in a well-planned “attack on America, the European-American culture, and the white race, with special emphasis on white males.” Bork explains that a multicultural curriculum should focus on the study of other cultures. But typically, such courses have not delved into the cultures of other parts of the world. Rather, “the focus [of multicultural curricula] is on groups that, allegedly, have been subjected to oppression by American and Western civilization— homosexuals, American Indians, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on. The message is not that all cultures are to be respected, but that European culture, which created the dominance of white males, is uniquely evil. Multiculturalism follows the agenda of modern liberalism, and it comes straight from the Sixties counterculture. But now, in American education, it [the liberal mindset of the 1960s] is the dominant culture.”30
Kupelian argues that multiculturalism—a key link in the chain of all radical liberation movements—has created a “moral inversion” of sorts that proclaims all cultures to be equal. The result is a “pervasive environment of moral equivalence.”31 In fact, the moral landscapes of America and Britain have been reshaped around this destructive concept. Since all cultures are equal, all values are equal: the homosexual lifestyle cannot be criticized as sinful or contrary to nature; same-sex “marriage” should be accepted and embraced; and abortion is not murder but a rightful choice. All religions are equal: Christianity cannot be superior to Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam or secular atheism, as it is but one cosmic viewpoint among many. All political and ideological views are equal—even those that clearly run counter to the free market system that helped build America.
Kupelian adds that “the multicultural madness that started in the ’60s has infused virtually all of American society with unending confusion…. A generation later, the various ‘liberation’ movements—sexual liberation, women’s liberation, gay liberation, and so on—have blossomed into rampant infidelity, divorce and family breakdown, gender confusion, AIDS, abortion, and other mammoth problems…. [Moreover, what] was bizarre and unmentionable a generation ago is today a civil right.”32
In the end, the Anglo-American Bible-based culture is no longer held as superior to other cultures. Thanks to multiculturalism—which is the driving ideology behind “social justice,” political correctness, tolerance and non-discrimination, and “equal rights”—the Bible has been all but gutted of its authority to regulate human conduct. Meanwhile, values, ethics, and morality become relative, situational.
As a point of interest, when God brought the children of Israel into the Promised Land, He instructed them in one way of life. This included “strangers” or Gentiles. If a foreigner wanted to live in the land of Israel, he was required to live by Israel’s laws—God’s laws (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22). No allowances were made for other “cultural preferences.” Similarly, God warned the Israelites against intermarrying with non-Israelites (Deut. 7:3-4; Ezra 9:1-4; Neh. 13:23-25)—as He did not want to pollute the superior culture He sought to establish for Israel. God is not a multiculturalist—all cultures are not equal—and He expressly prohibits anything that interferes with His perfect standard.
God warns, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20). Is that not exactly what we have done? Is it any wonder that Britain and America are today afflicted by overwhelming political, social and economic troubles? As verse 24 says, have we not “cast away the Law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel”? Kupelian echoes this very point: “[Today’s secular] worldview whereby we declare all human cultures and moral codes, from the fairest to the foulest, to be equal in value is made possible only by the total abandonment of any objective standard of right and wrong.”33
As we have seen, our founding fathers looked to the Scriptures as the basis of all they would implement in terms of governance. As a summary of a broader body of laws, the Ten Commandments have been that fixed standard in America since before its founding. Some of the colonies even incorporated the entire text of the Ten Commandments into their legal code. Other passages of the Old Testament were copied in whole or in part into various colonial or state legal documents.34 Indeed, with brilliant simplicity and brevity, the Ten Commandments codify acceptable human behavior— not just for then or now, but for all time.
As previously mentioned, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were not only fundamental to the development of English law, they also served as the leading legal reference for America’s founders. With his work deeply rooted in biblical principles, Blackstone was apparently the first to use the phrase “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” to refer to divine law. Natural law, for Blackstone, was—or sprang from—God’s Law. Thus, both British and American law can be traced to “natural law,” which in reality reflects the Torah. As H. B. Clark wrote in Biblical Law, “The Ten Commandments are the basis of Mosaic law—the constitution of the Mosaic dispensation. They have been called the greatest short moral code ever formulated and the idealized model for all law, and it has been argued [by scholars such as Blackstone] that the whole of natural law may be deduced from them.”35
But today, radicals and political elites want to deny the fact that America’s legal system originated in Scripture. For example, in 1991 Clarence Thomas—then a U.S. Federal Judge—appealed to the concept of “natural law” in some of his legal opinions and writings. Like Blackstone, Thomas viewed “natural law” as an extension of God’s “higher law.” When Thomas was subsequently nominated for a post on the U.S. Supreme Court, liberals in the U.S. Senate took vociferous exception. The reason? They knew his stance on biblical law and were fearful of anyone who might promote the Bible from a position of authority. Leading the attack was then-senator Joseph Biden—the current vice president in the Obama White House. Biden wrote an article that year in The Washington Post expressing his party’s distain for Thomas’ conservative view of law. In the article, Biden defined “natural law” in complete opposition to the “higher law” of the Bible—claiming that “natural law” does not function as “a specific moral code regulating individual behavior.” He wrote that “natural law” is not a “static set of unchanging principles”—such as we find in the Ten Commandments—but an “evolving body of ideals.”36
Clearly, to Biden—whose views characterize those of today’s liberal Democrats including the Obama administration—“natural law” is moral relativism in disguise. “Law” is what you choose to believe and follow. Morality becomes a matter of individual preferences.
Thus, as DeMar writes, “The modern conception of law is a far cry from the moral principles on which America was founded.” However, man “cannot live within the fluid boundaries of legal relativism. There must be a definitive and final legal standard of appeal to justify moral decisions at the personal and governmental levels. If not, then one judge’s opinion is as good (or as bad) as another.”37
That standard is the Word of God. But as Solomon once said, there is nothing really new under the sun—for in the Garden of Eden, even Adam and Eve rejected that standard. They too chose the path of moral relativism.
True, there was no codified “law” at that time—but the moral principles behind God’s laws and precepts were in existence. In Eden, God’s personal instructions to Adam and Eve equaled His word. In taking of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” Adam and Eve effectively told God that they would determine—choose—what was good and evil, light and dark, bitter and sweet. Moral relativism. But did not the Serpent at least imply that it was their “civil right” to do so—that they needed liberation?
The Destructive Myth of “Church-State Separation”
The issue of “church and state” in Britain has been fundamentally different from that in America. After all, Britain has been Christian for over a thousand years. The supremacy of the Church of England—as the official “state religion”—has allowed Protestantism to play a role in nearly every area of British society. Even today, “Lords” representing the Church of England have a voice in the British Parliament. But having a “state church” and actually practicing that religion are completely separate issues. In the UK, secular humanism has made tremendous inroads into academia as well as mainstream society—and atheism (along with New Age philosophy) is almost universally accepted among the educated. The long-term result has been that while the “state religion” is still taught in the public schools, it has been reduced to little more than a history lesson on past English culture.
But in America, the myth of the so-called “separation of church and state” has—in alliance with multiculturalism, “equal rights” and political correctness—been conjured up by radicals solely for the purpose of denying the Bible its rightful place in society. In Protestantism in America, Jerald C. Brauer writes that soon after World War II the church-state issue emerged in a “radical form.” Controversy arose over whether public monies could be used for private religious schools. Parochial schools had begun demanding their share of tax revenue that normally went to fund public education. After all, state-funded schools at the time were promoting (or allowing) classroom Bible reading and prayer. Protestant organizations aggravated the situation by arguing that such funds should be withheld from non-Protestant (i.e., Catholic) parochial schools. When public resources were ultimately denied, private schools and various secular organizations began to appeal to the First Amendment—citing the so-called “separation of church and state” clause—asserting that religion had no place at all in state-funded schools.38
Essentially, if private religious schools could not have access to state funding, then public schools—if they sponsored religious teachings—should also be denied state funds. Over time, this had the effect of driving religion from the public school setting—a consequence that later spilled over into nearly all other public venues.
In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with anti-religion forces in a case called McCollum vs. Board of Education. They wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between the church and the state which must be kept high and impregnable.” In effect, the court was acting to bar religious classes from public schools. The high court would subsequently prohibit state-sponsored prayers in schools in a 1962 New York case, then rule a year later against devotional Bible readings in classrooms. In an interview with Christian Century magazine, J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said: “The 1948 [McCollum] case … set the tone for the Supreme Court’s view on the proper relationship between church and state in public schools.”39 In the end, the court would permit religious instruction only if it was voluntary and held off-campus. Even Bibles and Christian books were banned from state schools. In Roberts vs. Madigan (1989), for example, the court ruled: “It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books which deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school.”40
Some states followed the court’s rulings to the letter, but many states—with little more than a contemptuous nod to the courts—continued to allow simple Bible-reading and school prayer with little concern. In time, however, pressure by radical groups would force them to do otherwise. Brauer sums up the result: “What actually prevailed in public education was either indifference or hostility, veiled or outright, against all religious beliefs. This was, in fact, a form of faith that denied the relevance of the Judeo-Christian tradition for modern life by denying it any place in the [public school] study program.”41
Following these public school precedents, the idea of the “separation of church and state” was carried over into virtually all of American public life. Efforts by God-hating radicals to prohibit the public display of the Ten Commandments is a prominent example. In 1980, liberal elements finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Stone vs. Graham. The Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be posted in public school classrooms because the “preeminent purpose” for doing so was “plainly religious in nature.” The case summary noted: “It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.”42
Have we really fallen this far?
In the late 1950s, the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated monuments displaying the Ten Commandments to numerous American schools and communities. Few of those monuments still stand on public grounds; most have been removed by court order following civil action by activist groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). In fact, the FFRF has systematically targeted these and similar displays over the past several years in an apparent attempt to strip America’s landscape of all expressions of reliance on God’s Word. In a Pennsylvania case, for example, the FFRF filed lawsuits in 2012 against two schools that still had the decades-old monuments on display. Citing Stone vs. Graham, the FFRF claimed that “the continued presence of the Ten Commandments on district property is an unconstitutional advancement and endorsement of religion,” and that the monuments “lacked any secular purpose”—that is, they were purely religious in nature.43
In a similar 2012 case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Bloomfield, New Mexico, to force the removal of a display of the Ten Commandments on the town’s City Hall lawn. The complaint charges that “the monument is a government endorsement of religion and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” That same year in North Carolina, the FFRF threatened the city of Newland for displaying a plaque of the Ten Commandments at the entrance to their town hall—claiming that the display was “offensive” and constituted a “blatant violation of the First Amendment.”44
These are but a few of scores of similar cases where the anti-God forces of the ACLU, the FFRF and other radical organizations have sought to remove any sign of faith, worship or reliance on the Bible from public view. In every case, they appeal to a distorted interpretation of the First Amendment. In a case that garnered considerable publicity, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was sued by radical agnostic organizations in 2000 for installing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the court rotunda. Sadly, a U.S. district judge ordered the monument removed, stating that it was “an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular [i.e., Christian] religion.” Moore refused and was ultimately removed from his position in 2003.45
In 2002 interview with the New American, Moore stated that the Ten Commandments were placed in his court specifically to “acknowledge the moral foundation of our law and the foundation of our government.” Of the radicals who opposed him, he said, “They don’t want to be reminded that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state…. They don’t like to be reminded that there is a God.” He added, “Anytime you deny the acknowledgment of God, you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists.”46
Notice what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Note that the amendment is addressed directly to the U.S. Congress—the federal government. Thus, it carries no impetus for state governments—they can do as their state constitutions dictate. Note also that there is no mention of the words “church,” “state,” or “separation.” So where did the idea of “church-state separation” come from?
The concept first appeared in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that no one Christian denomination would gain an upper hand in America as they had in European nations, many of which had “established” state churches (such as the Church of England). Later, it became more about preventing any one religion, such as Christianity, from enjoying a privileged position in society.
Today, however, radicals and “progressive” liberals have nearly brainwashed America into believing that the “separation of church and state” means banishing religion entirely from the public square. As DeMar notes, “Americans have been duped to believe that the First Amendment was designed to keep religion out of every vestige of government under the subterfuge of ‘separation of church and state’ language.”47
But from the perspective of America’s founding fathers, “separation of church and state” did not mean that the country was not to be a Christian nation built upon the principles of the Bible. It meant that no one church denomination should enjoy a preferential status—such as was the case in Britain, where the Church of England was the “state” religion. If the amendment had been designed to prevent religion from having an impact on civil issues, it would seem rather strange that on September 24, 1789—the same day the First Amendment was approved—congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. Clearly, America’s founders and early settlers wanted biblical principles to be fully entrenched within society—including the government.
Ultimately, the idea of the “separation of church and state” is a myth fabricated by liberal activists solely for the purpose of removing all Judeo- Christian influence from American public life. Unfortunately, the U.S. court system—egged on by organizations such as the ACLU, the FFRF and Americans United for Separation of Church and State—has played right along, resulting in a radical separation of religion and civil government. But the fact is, the First Amendment only provides a legal separation between “organized religion” and the federal government—not a moral or a spiritual separation. Nothing in the amendment suggests that the nation’s government should not have a religious or biblical foundation. There is no reason, under the Constitution of the United States, why the principles of the Bible cannot pervade the laws and institutions of America.
When the acknowledgment of God and reliance on the Bible are driven from the public arena, what happens over the long term? Writing for the New American, Steve Farrell gives this insightful answer: “By banning Judeo-Christian morality from the public sphere, we give preference—by default—to lawmakers, judges, and executives (with powers over life and death, prosperity and poverty, freedom and servitude) to act without conscience and to educators (with powers over the hearts and minds of our children) to mold the rising generation without any rock solid guiding principles—a frightening prospect.”48
A Post-Christian Britain and America?
The tidal wave of social and cultural change unleashed throughout the 1960s and 1970s has fundamentally changed America. Now, a liberal generation nurtured in godless state-funded schools stands at the helm of this great nation. Their “education” has been punctuated by evolution and the rejection of God—where, in the absence of moral absolutes, anything goes and nothing is judged. Radical elements have either taken over or profoundly altered the key institutions of government, media, education, and religion. Christianity is particularly challenged, mocked, and ridiculed—the Bible discarded—while godless beliefs such as no-fault divorce, same-sex “marriage,” and abortion are accepted and embraced by the masses.
The divorce rate in America continues to exceed 50 percent. While the rate is down a bit across parts of the UK—because couples are delaying divorce for financial reasons—it has risen recently in England to 42 percent. Interestingly, in both countries the percentage is roughly the same for Christians. Abortion in America stands at about 1.3 million annually, and just under 200,000 for Britain and Wales (abortions are free under the UK’s system of nationalized healthcare). Since abortion was made “legal” in America in 1973, some 55 million helpless children have been murdered. Shockingly, most of the women who get abortions claim to be “Christian.” And most (85 percent) are unmarried, which points to the ongoing Anglo- American epidemic of premarital and extramarital sex. At current rates, about one third of American women will have an abortion.49
Advocates of same-sex marriage continue to advance their cause, as recent polls show that more and more Americans are getting “comfortable” with the idea. In 1996, only 27 percent of adults approved of legalizing “gay marriage.” Today, 53 percent approve—but that figure jumps to 73 percent among those age 18 to 29. Thus, we have passed the “tipping point,” where traditional marriage is no longer the majority view!50
Today, same-sex marriages are recognized as legal in about a dozen U.S. states. In June of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue, essentially deciding to leave the matter up to the individual states. But the ruling does give federal recognition to same-sex unions. Gay rights groups hailed the ruling as a major step forward for the country, but vowed to push on until same-sex marriage is legal all across America. In Britain, same-sex marriage has long had broad public acceptance. In July, Parliament legalized the practice and Queen Elizabeth gave it a formal nod.
But God warns those who call evil good or darkness light (Isa. 5:20). Make no mistake, the legitimization of homosexual unions as “marriage” will only accelerate the breakdown of Anglo-American society—with tragic consequences!51
As this chapter has shown, it is all too clear that Britain and America no longer reflect Christian values and morals. Moreover, a 2009 Newsweek article titled “The End of Christian America” suggests that Christianity in America is in a state of serious decline—just as it has been for decades in Britain. Citing the results of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), author Jon Meacham explains that the percentage of Americans claiming “no religious affiliation” has almost doubled in about two decades—rising from 8 to 15 percent between 1990 and 2008.52
These are not disgruntled Christians skipping church, but Americans who are choosing to not be Christians. The reasons behind this growing trend are complex, but there can be no doubt that the progressive expulsion of God and the Bible from the public arena has not only adversely affected Christian practice in the private arena, it has also given Christianity itself a black eye—and it’s only getting worse (see Appendix 8 on the failure of Christianity in Britain and America).
According to Meacham, this trend has been fairly uniform across the entire nation—even in the so-called “Bible Belt”—except for the Northeast. Indicating a change in previous patterns, the ARIS report stated that “the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.” Meacham interviewed Albert Mohler—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the world’s largest—who found the ARIS report particularly disturbing: “[The] Northeast … was the foundation, the [historical] home base, of American religion. To lose New England [to secularism] struck me as momentous.”
Mohler added: “A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us. The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last [few hundred years] has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of [American] culture…. Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of [American] society.”
Meacham notes, “Many conservative Christians believe they have lost the battles over issues such as abortion, school prayer, and even same-sex marriage, and that the country has now entered a post-Christian phase.” In most contexts, “post-Christian” refers the decline of the importance of Christianity in a particular society.
Even in the United Kingdom—which has a centuries-old Christian tradition—Christianity as a way of life has lost its importance. Indeed, as recently as April 2014 the former archbishop of Canterbury—Lord Williams of Oystermouth—made the profound proclamation that Britain is now a “post-Christian nation.” The evidence can be found throughout British society. For example, a movement is currently under way in Britain to revive the teaching of Christianity in the nation’s public schools. But note that the underlying motivation is a legal requirement that schools teach Christianity as central to England’s religious heritage—not necessarily as moral way of life. The movement is supported by a YouGov study indicating that 64 percent of survey participants believe Christianity should be taught in the schools—but for what reason?—to help children better understand English history and culture. However, the same study also revealed that only half of those polled believe that Christianity provides a moral compass that helps children decipher right from wrong. Apparently, the purpose of those heading up this new effort is not to teach the Bible as a source of morality, but to teach the Christian religion merely as a matter of historical and cultural interest. This approach bows to pressure from the British Humanist Association, which insists that Christianity not be taught “to the exclusion of other approaches to life and not in any pretense that it is relevant to the developing beliefs, values and life stances of most young people.”53
But as Mohler notes: “The moral teachings of Christianity have exerted an incalculable influence on Western civilization. As those moral teachings fade into cultural memory, a secularized morality takes their place. Once Christianity is abandoned by a significant portion of the population, the moral landscape necessarily changes.”54 Kupelian puts it like this: “America—from her government to her schools and even to her churches— has steadily fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that previously illuminated and gave life and strength to the nation’s institutions. This is equivalent to turning out the country’s lights.”55
The same can be said of Britain, which today reeks of secularism.
America’s current president, Barack Obama, has repeatedly asserted that the United States is “no longer a Christian nation.”56 While Obama’s assessment—typically stated with an element of perverse satisfaction—is indicative of his radical, godless agenda for America, he is, nonetheless, correct. The United States was clearly founded on biblical principles. From that perspective, America was a Christian nation. But somewhere along the way—in the space of less than two generations—America has become morally bankrupt. And that is not Christian.
In private life, most Anglo-Americans still claim to be Christians. And Britain and America still appear Christian: we have all of the outward signs and symbols and trappings of nations that honor their God. But Jesus has a question for today’s Christian: “Why do you call me Lord”—and plastic Christians love to talk about the Lord this and the Lord that—“but you don’t do what I say?” (Luke 6:46; see Isa. 29:13; 58:2; Ezek. 33:31-32). Hence, Anglo-American morality is at an all-time low: divorce, adultery, fornication, abortion, sexual perversion, porn addiction, materialism, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, the list goes on. In fact, as evidenced by research polls, the difference between self-professed Christians and non-Christians in America and Britain is superficial. In terms of lifestyle and culture, they are virtually identical (see Appendix 8 for details). Perhaps Kupelian is onto something when he argues that “Christians, like everybody else, have been seduced by the marketers of evil.”57
What does it mean that America and Britain are now post-Christian? Essentially, it means that Christianity—or, more to the point, the Bible—no longer impacts politics or culture as it once did. As we have seen, the Bible has been the very foundation upon which our nations were built. Its common moral values were fundamental in the Anglo-American rise to greatness.
Now, with the demise of that foundation, our nations have begun to crumble—as we rush headlong into divine judgment.
CHAPTER 15 NOTES
1. Gary DeMar, The Case for America’s Christian Heritage, p. 150; available at www.americanvision.org.
2. Craig M. White, The British Sense of Mission as a Ruling People, pp. 25- 26. Rosebery made the statement in November of 1900.
3. James Morris, Pax Britannica: The Climax of an Empire, p. 26
4. Shane Idleman, “America: ‘Christian Nation’—Fact or Fiction?” From “Regaining Lost Ground,” www.oneplace.com/es/ministries/regaining-lostground/ read/articles/america-christian-nation-fact-or-fiction--14596.html. Also see Leonard Ransil, “The Total Truth Solution for a Fractured America,” section 4, chapter 28: America Founded on a Christian Worldview, Our Founding Documents; www.lennysax.startlogic.com/TT-America’s_War- Founding_Documents.html. Both writers document the importance of Blackstone’s work.
5. DeMar, p. 151
6. DeMar, p. 7. Commenting on the widespread ignorance of America’s religious roots, DeMar adds that the “lack of historical knowledge of the role the Christian religion [and the Bible] played in the founding of America is rampant” (p. 5). In a news conference on the opening of the exhibit “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” James Billington, Librarian of the United States Congress, said that “the dominant role religion played in the earliest days of this country is largely ignored by media, academics, and others” (DeMar, p. 7).
7. Lutz and Hyneman’s work is discussed by Leonard Ransil in “The Total Truth Solution for a Fractured America,” available at www.lennysax. startlogic.com/TT-America’s_War-Founding_Documents.html.
8. DeMar, p.11
9. Noel Hornor, “America’s Biblical Roots,” The Good News (July/Aug. 2011); quoted from Signers of the Declaration of Independence (p. 35). An 1848 textbook used for decades in America’s public schools, the volume is made up of biographies of each of the signers of the 1776 document.
10. Hornor, quoting Signers, p. 31
11. Hornor, quoting Bill Conry’s Farewell to America, p. 19
12. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” p. 7; www.earstohear.net/Heritage/ quotes.html
13. David Reagan, “America’s Christian Heritage,” p. 4; www.lamblion. com/articles/articles_usa8.php. Originally published in Lamplighter magazine (July 2010).
14. DeMar, p. 9, quoting Kenneth L. Woodward, “How the Bible Made America,” Newsweek (Dec. 27, 1982)
15. DeMar, p. 9, quoting Time Magazine (May 25, 1987)
16. Hornor, quoting Peter Lillback’s George Washington’s Sacred Fire, p. 29
17. Hornor, quoting Jon Meacham’s American Gospel, p. 89
18. Hornor, quoting Cleon Skousen’s The 5000 Year Leap, p. 32
19. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” p. 11
20. Reagan, p. 5
21. Reagan, p. 5
22. DeMar, p. 7
23. “Quotes from America’s Leaders,” p. 12
24. DeMar, p. 8, quoting Time Magazine (Feb. 1954)
25. DeMar, pp. 11-12, quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, vol. 1, p. 303
26. DeMar, p. 12
27. Dave Miller, Ph.D., “Much Respect for the Quran—Not Much for the Bible,” www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7& article=1525
28. Dr. Ben Carson, America the Beautiful, p. 124
29. David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil, p. 88
30. Kupelian, p. 88, quoting Judge Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p. 304
31. Kupelian, pp. 89-90
32. Kupelian, p. 89. As this book is being written, President Barack Obama is advocating that illegal aliens be granted amnesty under the “principle” of “civil rights.”
33. Kupelian, p. 90
34. DeMar, p. 151
35. H. B. Clark, Biblical Law: Being a Text of the Statutes, Ordinances, and Judgments Established in the Holy Bible, p. 8
36. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., “Law and Natural Law: Questions for Judge Thomas,” The Washington Post (Sept. 8, 1991)
37. DeMar, p. 147
38. Jerald C. Brauer, Protestantism in America: A Narrative History, ch. 18; http://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-18-the-problem-of-renewal/
39. John Dart, “A Pioneer Figure in Church-State Rulings,” Christian Century (Sept. 19, 2006); www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp? title=3426
40. Shane Idleman, “America: Then vs. Now. It’s Almost Unbelievable,” www.oneplace.com/ministries/regaining-lost-ground/read/articles/americathen- vs-now-its-almost-unbelievable-14866.html
41. Brauer, Protestantism in America
42. Idleman, “America: Then vs. Now. It’s Almost Unbelievable”
43. Dave Bohon, “Pennsylvania Ten Commandments Monument Latest Target of Atheist Group,” www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-andmorals/ item/13098-pennsylvania-ten-commandments-monument-latesttarget- of-atheist-group?tmpl=component&print=1
44. Dave Bohon, “Atheist Groups Launch Attacks Against Ten Commandment Displays,” www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/ item/1108-atheist-groups-launch-attacks-against-ten-commandmentdisplays? tmpl=component&print=1
45. Thomas Eddlem, “Defender of the Decalogue” (interview with Roy Moore); www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15571- defender-of-the-decalogue?tmpl=component&print=1
46. Eddlem, “Defender of the Decalogue”
47. DeMar, p. 84
48. Steve Farrell, “Getting Up Front and Personal With the Ten Commandments,” www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/5996-getting-up-front-andpersonal- with-the-ten-commandments?tmpl=component&print=1
49. www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics
50. But today, even traditional marriage is in shambles; we have compromised with biblical principles and trashed God’s laws to the point where fornication, cohabitation, adultery, divorce, shattered homes, and fatherlessness are epidemic. With a generation obsessed with sexual promiscuity, marriage has been cast off as unnecessary. The result—nearly 50 percent of American babies are now born out of wedlock. Living together without marriage and single motherhood have become the norm. Encouraged by feminist organizations, single motherhood is, in fact, upheld as a badge of honor. With husbands and fathers no longer considered vital to the family, they are denigrated and ridiculed—then cast aside and replaced by the state. Today, welfare programs provide money, food, housing, and healthcare as if the government was a substitute “father.” Single mothers are married, as it were, to the government— the new “father-nanny” state.
51. Among the numerous modern-day evils and perversions of what God has created and ordained, same-sex “marriage” stands out as particularly heinous. Indeed, this satanic travesty tears at the very fabric of society—the family unit—and poses a grave threat to what is left of the Bible-based values upon which America and Britain were built. The American Psychiatric Association announced in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder. Thus, the gay lifestyle has slowly but surely become widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to what God has created and blessed. Now, exactly 40 years later, in 2013, the highest court in America has tacitly sanctioned the practice of “homosexual marriage.” Earlier, in his second-term inaugural address, Barack Obama casually referred to the importance of “gay rights”—the first U.S. president to ever do so. In Britain, Queen Elizabeth—symbolic head of the Church of England—gave her nod to the practice after Parliament made it “lawful.”
But perhaps it is the growing public acceptance of same-sex “marriage” that is so damning. A telling article titled “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court Hasn’t Made Up its Mind Yet, But America Has” (Time, April 8, 2013) reveals an alarming trend. In 1996, 27 percent of Americans approved of making “gay marriage” legal. In just over a decade (2007), that number had jumped to 40 percent. By 2013, the number had climbed to 53 percent. But in the 18 to 29 age group, a shocking 73 percent said they thought same-sex “marriage” should be recognized as legal. Hence the title of the article: While the Supreme Court might debate the issue, the American public (following the lead of the British) was quite ready to “thumb their nose” at what many still believe is the most sacred institution created by God—the family.
The broad acceptance of such a grievous perversion reflects the moral degradation to which America and Britain have succumbed in a single generation. In God’s eyes, could this be the final straw?
52. Jon Meacham, “The End of Christian America,” Newsweek (April 13, 2009)
53. Michael F. Haverluck, “Poll: Britain Wants to Return to its Christian Roots,” www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2012/12/01/poll-britain-wants-toreturn- to-its-christian-roots#.U4AB4YZx2PI
54. Meacham, “The End of Christian America”
55. Kupelian, p. 99
56. David Barton, “Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?” See at www.wallbuilders.com/LIBprinterfriendly.asp? id=23909.
57. Kupelian, p. 214
