Christians are not required to be pacifists

Why Christ was killed and how the Christian religion came to be the most influential force on Earth seems to be lost on the "modern" church. The pervading mentality in the church today seems to be that Christ was the consummate pacific hippie whose solitary attribute was kindness. But is this an accurate portrayal of Christ and the religion that bears his appellation? The truth is Jesus was anything but an apathetic pacifist.

It's an existential axiom that many things in life, ideologies in particular, suffer vitiation over time as opposed to sublimation. They dilute, and become less pure, as opposed to becoming more so. The Constitution of the Untied States plainly illustrates this. Over the paltry span on two centuries the Constitution has become perpetually more esoteric, as its principles were obfuscated and forgotten in the collective minds of the populace, until its finer nuances were unintelligible and even its most plain language became the object of debate. It would be foolish to believe that Christianity, being two millennia old, hasn't endured something similar.

In truth we need not speculate if such happened, as the modern church provides us with abundant evidence it has. Walk into a modern church and you often find people utterly indistinguishable from their neo-pagan "secular" counterparts. They have adopted the secular androgyny culture, the men and women dressing alike, and they often enjoy the same debasing activities and entertainment as their atheistic counterparts. They are significantly immersed, and invested in the pagan hegemony beyond the church walls, and bring more of it into the church than they bring Christianity out of it. I couldn't help but begin contemplating many years ago why and how this was occurring. 

It would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss all third party sources as unreliable; to do so would contradict the existence of this very article. Sometimes a new set of eyes can indeed provide new, or at least uncommon insight, into old content. But this reliance upon third party exposition has become excessive to put it mildly, to the point it commonly serves more to obfuscate than elucidate.

The people who call themselves Christians are studying The Bible less and less, and relying more and more on third party filters who aren't merely providing interpretation, but often using a tangential association with Biblical precept as a launchpad to market their own brand(s) of heretical theology. The self-professed faithful are going directly to the source perpetually less, and going to dubious middlemen perpetually more. And this results, as it only can, in vitiation.

People are far too often looking through a prism, through a prism, through a prism of third party Biblical exposition. In order to understand what I mean by that, think back to the exercise our teachers made us do as children, by having all the kids in class sit in a circle. One child was told a phrase to tell to the next, who told it to the next, until it came full circle back to the origin. The phrase, in practice, was supposed to be different than that which was originally disseminated. This was done to to illustrate how gossip, as a result of passing through too many filters, degraded the message. And this is no less true of Biblical precept.

It must be understood that no man now living, nor recently alive, should be viewed as a completely reliable arbiter in these matters. If one wants truth in regard to something the advent of which occurred before their own lifetime, they must seek sources which have propinquity, i.e., they must read history books. If they're looking for the truth in regard to the Christian faith, then before resorting to a third party source, they should first read or at the very least seek corroboration with, The Bible. And when I say The Bible I don't mean part of it, or half of it, but the whole Bible.

The Bible must regain its traditional prominence in the Christian faith.

Opposing tyranny is a deeply Biblical tradition. The liberation of the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt illustrates that God does not condone, and is fundamentally opposed to, tyranny. It's not uncommon for people to cite Romans 13 to argue that Christians are required to submit to authority even if unjust, but they fail to account for the fact that those who govern are no less subject to the laws of God, than those they govern.

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees." - Isa 10:1. 

"Can a corrupt throne be allied with you— a throne that brings on misery by its decrees?" - Psa 94:20. 

Indeed, multiple Biblical figures refused to comply with the established laws of their pagan or immoral rulers, and defiantly resisted the authorities and states under which they lived at God's behest. 

"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. - Lev 18:3-4. "

Abraham, Moses, David, Azariah, Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego, Daniel, John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Christ himself, are examples of Biblical figures who resisted unjust and/or immoral rulers. These figures also serve to illustrate that God often won't do all the work himself, however, and often requires his followers to be active participants in their own liberation. God will provide guidance, and perhaps even some assistance, but it's ultimately up to God's people to follow through.

Why Was Jesus killed?

Ask that question and the answer you'll typically get is something along the lines of "To atone for our sins." I'm not asking why Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, though, I'm asking why he was executed. Atonement for sins is the ethereal why. Blasphemy is the technical why. The corporeal why is very different, however, and something often quite abrasive to modern sensibilities in a church that, much like secular political parties, is becoming ever more conspicuously devoted to protecting its members from unpleasant speech and ideas. Even those derived directly from the very thing upon which it's ostensibly based; The Bible.

Jesus was murdered because he insulted people and opposed an immoral and oppressive government.

The Jesus was a "nice guy" heresy is easily refuted with a moment of thought. Who plots to murder someone who goes around hugging people and telling them how wonderful they are? The Pharisees had no insurance policy on Jesus; they stood to gain nothing tangible from assassinating a "nice," indigent manual laborer from some insignificant backwater. So why do it? The Bible provides the answer.

In Matthew 23 Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites" 8 times, "blind" 5 times, "fools" twice, belly crawling reptiles ("snakes" and "vipers") twice, accuses them of extortion and murder, and basically refers to them as dirty sinful (full of "uncleanness" and "iniquity") bastards. In the span of thirty nine verses, just based upon the provided list, Jesus directly insults the Pharisees no less than twenty one times. And not only did Jesus insult the Pharisees, but he more than once did it in public, in front of crowds of people. He routinely publicly humiliated them by evading carefully planned attempts at entrapment. And that's not something they appreciated or let slide.

"But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus." - Mat 12:14. 

"Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus." - Mar 3:6. 

"The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." - Mar 11:18. 

"Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him." - Luk 19:47.

Why was Jesus hated by the Pharisees? Being nice to people and tolerant of their beliefs doesn't make people hate you. He tells us why he was hated. He told people they were evil; i.e., he was impolite and intolerant of other peoples' feelings and beliefs.

"The world [...] hates me because I testify that its works are evil." - Jhn 7:7. 

So Jesus himself refutes the notion of the adored by all buddy Christ in The Bible. ("World" in this verse means "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ.") The Apostles followed in his footsteps and were almost all likewise murdered as a result. Simply saying that in a modern church however would be "controversial." Serving to illustrate how far the modern church has deviated from its roots. Jesus and the Apostles, unlike the modern church, weren't motivated by and didn't predicate their success on being liked or popular. 

But in the modern church certain truths about certain Biblical figures simply aren't mentioned, in much the same way many political truths about the Founders are omitted by the administrators of modern government, both blatantly for the purpose of suppressing the realization of the natural implications of those truths. Certain portions of The Bible are simply ignored by people advancing the pacific Christian narrative, in much the same manner that leftists ignore those portions of the Constitution, and those aspects of history that contravene their political beliefs. 

"'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than human beings!' - Act 5:29.

Point out that Christ and the Apostles were revolutionaries that ardently defied their repressive government, and you'll be designated a misguided maverick at best, or an outright un-Christian radical extremist at worst.

Christianity was in no small part advanced and established by the sword.

This is not something for which Christians should be ashamed, and they really need to stop apologizing for it. Virtually all belief systems have done this. Certainly there have been mistakes and abuses, but there have been such in every other culture and system of beliefs as well. The benefits produced by Christianity for humanity far outweigh its followers' failings. The fact is God has commanded his people, in certain instances, to take up the sword. Indeed, without the sword Christianity might have never achieved global prominence.

In 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts stripping Christians of their rights, property, and compelling them to adopt the religious practices of Rome's pagan religions. Many refused and were persecuted and killed. Another Roman aristocrat and Christian convert vying for power in Rome, Constantine, allegedly had a dream in which Christ instructed him to place the Greek initials for Christ on the standards of his army. Constantine would eventually defeat Diocletian in battle, i.e., warfare, i.e., with violence, and would go to become sole ruler of Rome and establish Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, paving the way for the Christianization of the civilized western world. In the Basilica of Maxentius a statue of Constantine was placed with the symbol of Christ that had been used on the banner of his soldiers, stating:

"Through this sign of salvation [the initials of Christ], which is the true symbol of goodness, I rescued your city and freed it from the tyrant's yoke."

The point is had this not occurred, and Constantine lost the war for supremacy in Rome, the world as we know it in which Christianity has the most followers globally may not exist.

The Founders were following Biblical and historical precedent.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: [...] a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, [...] a time for war and a time for peace. - Ecc 3:1, 3, 8.

The Founders knew The Bible. They attended colleges founded as seminaries. They also knew history and were likewise aware of men like Constantine. Far from their war for Independence being "un-Christian," the Founders viewed themselves as following in the footsteps of their faith's Biblical and historical patriarchs. This is explicitly conveyed in the Seal of the United States proposed by Franklin, (John) Adams, and Jefferson (considered three of the less religious men among the Founders), which depicts the destruction of Pharaoh's army following the parting the Red Sea by Moses, with the inscription around the border reading "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." 

The Founders weren't deviating from the Biblical paradigm in the war for Independence. They were returning to it.

"The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe, which serve to support tyrannical governments, are not the Christian religion, but abuses and corruptions of it." - Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832.

God had never intended for his people to be ruled by an Earthly king. Indeed, serving an Earthly autocrat is a form of idolatry, an affront to God's will, and something he takes as a personal insult. After the Hebrews demanded to be ruled like the other (pagan) nations, God had Samuel warn them of the onerous consequences, and the loss of liberty that would result if their wish was granted. But they insisted so God relented and gave them their wish as punishment.

"And the LORD told him: 'Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.' Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. [....] But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us.'" - 1 Sa 8:7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20.

The Founders didn't believe that Christians were required to submit to wicked rulers, prohibited from defending themselves, their property, or their liberties, or engaging in violence to that end. Not only were these things not forbidden, they were required by the Christian faith, because the Biblical Deity opposes tyranny and has repeatedly used his followers to combat human manifestations of it.

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. [...]  Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Second Virginian Convention, March 23, 1775. 

"Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the Christian religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their laws and liberties..." - A unanimous declaration by the men of Marlborough, Massachusetts, 1773.

"When kings, ministers, governors, or legislators, therefore, instead of exercising the powers entrusted to them according to the principles, forms, and propositions stated by the constitution and established by the original compact, prostitute those powers to the purposes of oppression - to destroy instead of preserving the lives, liberties, and properties of the people - they are no longer to be deemed magistrates vested with a sacred character, but become public enemies, and ought to be resisted." - Proclamation of the Great and General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, drafted by John Adams, January 23, 1776.

"We remember his injunction to forgive and love our most injurious enemies. But neither the law of Christianity nor of reason requires us to prostrate our national independence, freedom, prosperity, and honor at the feet of proud, insatiable oppressors. [...] Such a prostration would be treason against the being who gave us our inestimable privileges, civil and religious, as a sacred deposit to be defended and transmitted to posterity. It would be criminal unfaithfulness and treachery to our country, our children, and the whole human race." - Address of the Congressional Ministers of Massachusetts to President John Adams.

The Founders weren't "pacifists" because they knew the patriarchs of The Bible weren't pacifists either.

"Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle." - Psa 144:1.

Founder John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, the nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice appointed by George Washington, a co-author of The Federalist, and a President of the American Bible Society expounds upon the Biblical legitimacy of righteous warfare.

That all those wars and fightings are unlawful, which proceed from culpable desires and designs (or in Scripture language from lusts), on the one side or on the other, is too clear to require proof. As to wars of an opposite description, and many such there have been, I believe they are as lawful to the unoffending party in our days, as they were in the days of Abraham. He waged war against and defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils; and, instead of being blamed, was blessed." - to John Murray, October 12, 1816.

This sentiment was not exclusive to Founding era statesmen, but was shared by many clergy of the day as well, and in many cases was derived by the former from the latter. In 1750 the Rev. Jonathon Mayhew, D.D., delivered "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers." In 1766 the Rev. Charles Chauncey, D.D., delivered a thanksgiving sermon on the repeal of the stamp act. In 1770 the Rev. Samuel Cook, D.D., delivers "Civil Government for the Good of the People." In 1774 the Rev. William Gaden, of Roxbury, delivered "Christian Duty of Resistance to Tyrants; Prepare for War; Appeal to Heaven." In 1775 the Rev. Samuel Langdon, D.D., delivers "Government, Corrupted by Vice, Recovered by Righteousness." In 1778 the Rev. Phillips Paxson, of Chelsea, delivered "Popular Government, the True Spirit of Liberty." Such constituted typical sermonic content among New England clergy.

The first shots of the Revolutionary War killed 8 men in the Minutemen militia on the lawn of Pastor Jonas Clark's church. Clark was harboring two fugitives from British justice, Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and the 8 men killed were members of Clark's congregation; whom Clark had for years inculcated with the precepts of self-defense and inalienable rights through his sermons. The Reverend James Caldwell, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Elizabethtown, NJ, who fought in the battle of Springfield, is another superb illustration of the fallacy that pacifism is the obligation of American Christians. 

"When the glorious war of our Revolution commenced which resulted in our independence, the Rev. James Caldwell was then pastor of this church. His name and fame are interwoven with the history of his country, and are as dear to the State as to the Church. He became early and deeply interested in the conflict, and devoted all his powers no less to the freedom of his country than to the service of his God. Such was his influence over his people that, with few exceptions, they became one with him in sentiment and feeling; and thenceforward he and they were branded as the rebel parson and parish. To the enemies of his country he was an object of the deepest hatred; and such was their known thirst for his life, that, while preaching the gospel of peace to his people, he was compelled to lay his loaded pistols by his side in the pulpit. 

At the first call to arms, the State offered its brigade for the common defence, and Mr. Caldwell was elected its chaplain. His immense popularity gave him an influence that filled the tories with rage and made his name common as a household word among the British troops. They offered a large reward for his capture. For his personal safety, he went armed. 

So entire was the confidence of the people in his integrity that, when the army became greatly reduced, and both provisions and money were hard to be obtained, he was appointed Assistant Commissary-General. He not only was earnest and eloquent in his pulpit for the cause of his country, but was active and brave in battle. In one of the engagements near Springfield, New Jersey, Mr. Caldwell was in the hottest of the fight, and, seeing the fire of one of the companies slacken for want of wadding, he galloped to the Presbyterian meeting house near by, and, rushing in, ran from pew to pew, filling his arms with hymn-books. Hastening back with these into battle, he scattered them about in every direction, saying, as he pitched one here and another there, 'Now, boys, put Watts into them.'" - Reverend Nicholas Murray, Memorial to Congress for Rev. James Caldwell, 1840. 

Clergy of more than one denomination were supporters of American Independence, and the British specifically targeted members of their denominations and their churches for retaliation, turning the latter into stables, burning them, etc. Both the Reverend Caldwell above and his wife were killed, and his house and church burned, by British forces and Tories. 

It should go without saying that it's in the interests of Christianity's enemies to convince its adherents that pacifism is a Christian duty. A church full of pacifists won't be an obstacle to the Marxist left's subversion of America's institutions. They won't defy or depose a totalitarian state. They'll do what hyper-effeminate pacifists do and obsequiously accept their abuse at the hands of their enemies. And unfortunately the left has been highly successful in propagating this heretical mentality throughout the modern church.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. - Declaration of Independence. 

It's no coincidence the liturgy of modern churches overtly suppresses masculinity. The modern church has been nigh completely re-purposed toward inducing socio-political languor in its congregants. If the left can't abolish theism altogether, it will at least suppress resistance to their agenda from the Christian right, by assiduously feminizing men through inculcation of the belief that defying unjust rulers and/or resisting an oppressive state is disobedience to God. One can defeat a stronger opponent if that opponent refuses to fight, and facilitating that agenda seems to be one of the most conspicuous goals of the modern church.

The truth is Christians are not required to be apolitical or indefatigably submissive. Indeed, this sentiment is the opposite of what the Founders believed and animated their separation from Britain.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia, August 1, 1776.

When elements hostile to Christianity gain a foothold, or worse ascend to prominence in a society established upon Christianity, it places all Christianity and liberty derived from such in jeopardy.

"I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that 'all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free.'" - Alexis de Tocqueville, Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The United States.

If Christian liberty is to be saved, it's imperative that the American church return to its theological roots, both Biblical and civic. Christians must not only be knowledgeable of and active in politics, but must maintain prominence in the political aspect of life, lest Christian liberty and religion have no defenders in government and be left entirely at the mercy of apostatic elements to constrain and uproot uncontested.  

"Christians should endeavor to understand, and should take suitable interest in the subject of civil government. It is neither remote from them, nor too unholy to occupy their attention. From the mere contests of faction they may, indeed, stand aloof; but surely, that which attracted the attention of an inspired apostle is not beneath the study of the most spiritually minded of the followers of Christ. They should study the subject, moreover; for without this, they cannot with becoming high intelligence perform their own duty respecting it. [....] The ambassador of Christ should keep close to the footsteps of his Master and of his inspired followers, and rising above the transient conflicts and unworthy behests of party, should essay to exhibit and illustrate the entire subject of governmental arrangements and polity, in a manner becoming an exalted moral institution — so as to bring a revenue of glory to Christ the Supreme Lawgiver. [....] So far then is it from being true that the Christian is to disregard the movements of society, or even what relates to matters of civil regimen, and human rights and liberty, that the very opposite is a truth, and a most important one. The Christian should, of all men, regard things like these with a constant and active interest. So his Bible teaches him - for its pages abound in directions bearing immediately upon them." - Pastor James M. Willson, 1853.

The effects of immorality and vice on government and liberty

"For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." - Jde 1:4.

Previously we've learned about the Christian source of our liberties. Just as important as understanding the origin of our freedoms, however, is understanding and being able to identify those things which threaten to undermine and erode them. To a great degree the way in which we live our lives can mean the difference between preserving, or eroding, those freedoms which our Christian forefathers left us as an inheritance.

The Founding philosophy was that immorality and freedom were inversely related, with the increase or diminution of one having a reciprocal effect upon the other. The more moral a people were, the less govenrment they consequently needed, and therefore more free they could be. Conversely the more immoral a people were, the more government they consequently needed, and therefore less free they could be.

The Irish Statesman Edmund Burke eloquently describes this concept thus.  

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly, 1791. 

Tocqueville, in his treatise on American life and culture, makes the same observation.

"Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?" - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic.

This notion was conspicuously shared by America's Founders, early statesmen, and clergy.

"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?" - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

"The voice of experience and the voice of reason speak but one language. [....] Both united in teaching us, that men may as well build their houses upon the sand and expect to see them stand, when the rains fall, and the winds blow, and the floods come, as to found free institutions upon any other basis than that of morality and virtue, of which the word of God is the only authoritative rule, and the only adequate sanction. All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent state government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them; or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State." - Robert Winthrop, legislator, author and orator, and descendant of Governor John Winthrop (founder of the Massachusetts Bay colony), May 28, 1849. 

"The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the Holy Writings not only as most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us what he is. [...] From the same pure fountain of wisdom we learn that vice destroys freedom, that arbitrary power is founded on public immorality, and that misconduct in those who rule a Republic, the necessary consequence of general licentiousness, so disgusts and degrades that, dead to generous sentiment, they become willing slaves. [....] There must be religion. When the ligament is torn, society is disjointed, and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by a vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell conscience. They sell their country. By this vile practice they become odious and contemptible. [....] The most important of all lessons from the Scriptures is the denunciation of the rulers of every state that rejects the precepts of religion. Those nations are doomed to death who bury in the corruption of criminal desire the awful sense of an existing God, cast off the consoling hope of immortality, and seek refuge from despair in the dreariness of annihilation. Terrible, irrevocable doom - loudly pronounced, repeatedly, strongly exemplified in the Sacred Writings, and fully confirmed by the long record of time! It is the clue which leads through the intricacies of universal history. It is the principle of all sound political science." - Gouverneur Morris, member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Articles of Confederation, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, signer of the Federal Constitution, author of numerous legal works, An Inaugural Discourse: Delivered Before the New York Historical Society September 4, 1816.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, & insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carrol, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, to James McHenry of November 4, 1800. 

"Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time but beyond a certain pitch even the best Constitution will be ineffectual. [....] What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." - John Witherspoon, Professor, Minister, Member of The Continental Congress, Signer of The Declaration of Independence,"The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776. 

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man. We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty. [....] Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness. [....] A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. How necessary then is it for those who are determined to transmit the blessings of liberty as a fair Inheritance to posterity, to associate on public principles in support of public virtue." - Samuel Adams, a collage of quotations from three separate sources, beginning with an essay published in The Advertiser in 1748, followed by a letter to John Trumbull on October 16, 1778, and concluding with a letter to James Warren on February 12, 1779. 

"The present generation may be congratulated on the acquisition of a form of government more immediately in all its branches under the influence and control of the people, and therefore, more free and happy than was enjoyed by their ancestors. But as government so popular can be supported only by universal knowledge and virtue, in the body of the people, it is the duty of all ranks to promote the means of education for the rising generations, as well as true religion, purity of manners, and integrity of life among all orders and degrees." - Proclamation of the Great and General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, drafted by John Adams, January 23, 1776. 

"The censorial power, which had for its object the manners of the public in the ancient free states, was absolutely necessary to their continuance, we cannot help being of the opinion that the only thing which we have now to supply the place of this is the religious discipline of the several sects with respect to their own members; so that the denomination or profession which shall take the most effectual care of the instruction of its members, and maintain its discipline in its fullest vigor, will do the most essential service to the whole body." - Synod of New York and Philadelphia, May 12, 1775. 

"The virtue of the people in general is of more consequence to the stability of Republics, or free states, than those of a different kind. In monarchies, a sense of honor, the subordination of rank in society, and the rigor of despotic authority, supply in some measure the place of virtue, in producing public order; but in free states, where the power is ultimately lodged in the body of the people, if there is a general corruption of the mass, the government itself must speedily be dissolved." - Synod of New York and Philadelphia to the members under its charge, May, 1783. 

It has been often said that Christian nations are the civilized nations, and as often that the most thoroughly Christian are the most highly civilized. Is this a mere coincidence? Study well the history of Christianity in its relation to the nation and it will be found that it is something more than a mere coincidence, that there is between the two the relation of cause and effect, and that the more thoroughly the principles of Christianity reach into and influence the life of the nation the more certainly will that nation advance in civilization. At least it is the duty of every patriot, finding that it has been such a factor in our life, to inquire whether it does stand to its civilization in the relation of cause and effect, and it would be in the highest degree unphilosophical to assume that there has been only a coincidence, and therefore that its presence in the nation is a matter of indifference. If found that it has been both a potent and helpful factor in the development of our civilization, then it is a patriot's duty to uphold it and extend its influence. This is in line with the general obligation which rests upon all to help everything which tends to the bettering of the life of the republic. - David J. Brewer, United States Supreme Court Justice, The United States: A Christian Nation, 1905.

The purpose of the preceding quotations, as before, is to illustrate that this sentiment was one found across the gamut of American society for generations. Indeed, this is confirmed by Frenchman Alexis De Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1830s and wrote a book containing his observations of American society.

"There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. [...] The revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity. [...] They hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The United States.   

It's no coincidence that the Marxist "secular" left assiduously attacks, and seeks to subvert the church, and promotes immorality of every kind. Traditionally it was the church that maintained morality, which is the basis of American liberty, throughout society. By preventing the church from maintaining morality, morality naturally erodes, and therefore the freedoms based upon such.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781. 

Christianity must be respected as a defining part of our heritage and the basis of our liberty.

I insist that Christianity has been so wrought into the history of this republic, so identified with its growth and prosperity, has been and is so dear to the hearts of the great body of our citizens, that it ought not to be spoken of contemptuously or treated with ridicule. [....] And we who are citizens of this republic—recognizing the identification of Christianity with its life, the general belief that Christianity is the best of all religions, that it passed into the lives of our fathers and is taken into the lives of our brethren as something of sacred power—ought, even if not agreeing with all that is claimed for it, to at least accord to it respect. 

From the standpoint of citizenship the treatment of Christianity may be regarded as in some respects similar to that which is accorded and is due to the national flag. Who looks upon that as a mere piece of cloth costing but a trifle, something to be derided or trampled upon at will? A particular banner may not have cost much. It may be cheap to him who sees only the material and work which have passed into it, but to every patriot it is the symbol of patriotism. Its history is a record of glory. A century ago the Barbary pirates, who had defied the flags of Europe, saw it waving over Decatur's vessels and bowed in submission. [....] 

To-day it waves at the masthead of American vessels in every water of the globe, and commands the world's respect. An insult to it every citizen feels is an insult to himself, and all insist that it shall be accorded due respect. We remember how, in the early days of our great civil struggle, the loyal heart was stirred with the thrilling words of Secretary Dix, "If any man attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot." [...] We love to watch its fold swing out to the breeze on every patriotic day, to see it decorate the walls where gather our great conventions. We glory in every tribute that is paid to it in any part of the globe. It tells the story of conflicts, of defeats and victories. It has waved over many a field of battle, and the blood of our noblest and best has been shed in its defense. It is eloquent of all the sufferings and trials of days gone by, of all the great achievements of the American people, and as we swing it to the breeze we do so with undoubting faith that it will wave over grander things in the future of this republic. - David J. Brewer, United States Supreme Court Justice, The United States: A Christian Nation, 1905.

Christians in a Christian country, through a government established on Christian principles, have the authority, and duty, to suppress immorality, as to allow immorality to be promoted is to allow the erosion of the foundation of our liberties, and is therefore a direct assault on American freedom itself. It is for this reason, to preserve our liberties, that Founder John Jay asserts Americans must elect Christian public servants.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court appointed by George Washington, Co-Author of The Federalist, President of the American Bible Society (1821-1827), to John Murray, October 12, 1816.

The sentiment that it is the duty of Christians, and civil servants appointed by them to suppress sin, was understood and shared throughout early America from its colonization, to the Founding era, and many generations after. As the Reverend James Willson (professor of theology at Allegheny Seminary) states in his treatise on the role of government.

"The righteous magistrate, who knows his place, and has a proper sense of the nature and functions of the magistracy, will not allow the trangressors of law to escape with impunity. He not only 'bears the sword' - he is not only armed with a just authority - he will use the 'sword:' it will not lie idly in the scabbard; he will exercise the power with which he has been invested. Faithful to his calling and to the great interests of social and moral order, the upright civil functionary, whether in a higher or an inferior station, will not permit God's authority to be impugned, or the interests of society to suffer, from unrestrained lawlessness - from flagrant breaches of the peace - from rampant immorality - from gross, avowed and open hostility to the name and law of God. To be indifferent to these [...] is a virtual abdication of power." - The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government, 1853. 

And this principle was plainly reflected in the governments of the day.

"Resolved, That it be recommended by this Congress to the people of all ranks and denominations throughout this colony [...] that they also use their influence to discountenance and suppress any profanation thereof in others." - Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, 1775. 

"That piety and virtue; which alone can secure the freedom of any people, may be encouraged, and vice and immorality suppressed, the Great and General Court have thought fit to issue this proclamation, commanding and enjoining it upon the good people of this colony that they lead sober, religious, and peaceable lives, avoiding all blasphemies, contempt of the Holy Scriptures and of the Lord's day, and all other crimes and misdemeanors, all debauchery, profaneness, corruption, revelry, all riotous and tumultuous proceedings, and all immoralities whatsoever. [....] And all judges, justices, sheriffs, grand jurors, tithingmen, and all over civil officers within this colony, are hereby strictly enjoined and commanded that they contribute all in their power, by their advice, exertions, and examples, towards a general reformation of manners; and that they bring to condign punishment every person who shall commit any of the crimes or misdemeanors aforesaid, or that shall be guilty of any immoralities whatsoever." - Proclamation of the Great and General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, drafted by John Adams, January 23, 1776.

"Above all, we earnestly exhort you to contribute all within your power to the encouragement of those virtues for which the Supreme Being has declared that he will bestow his blessings upon a nation, and to the discouragement of those vices for which He overturns kingdoms in his wrath." - Legislature of the State of Massachusetts Bay, 1777.

"Our political fathers and civil rulers will not fail to do all they can to promote religion and virtue through the community, as the surest means of rendering their government easy and happy to themselves and the people. For this purpose they will watch over their morals with the same affectionate and tender care that a pious and prudent parent watches over his children, and, by all methods which love to God and man can inspire and wisdom point out, endeavor to check and suppress all impiety and vice, and lead the people to the practice of that righteousness which exalteth a nation." - Puritan Preacher before the legislative council of Massachusetts, 1780.

"It (Christianity) excuses no compromises of principles, and no paltering with sin." - Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1824.

The American Christian must understand that an attack on Christian morality is likewise an attack on American liberty. The former is the foundation of the latter, and without the former, the latter cannot subsist. An immoral people cannot be free; they destroy their own liberties. As a contributor under the pseudonym "Mentor," writing in the Boston Gazette, April 20, 1778, observes.

"There is nothing upon which the well being of a community so much depends as a due regard for religion and morality. If a sense of religion is once removed from the minds of men, they will soon find a thousand means to evade the laws of their country."