Christian Influence on the American Revolution

            The Revolution is, in fact, an important starting point when learning American history. However, many of the building blocks that led to the birth of a new nation do not focus on the war itself, but rather the hearts and minds of the people leading up to and long after the war. Why Christianity had influenced the American Revolution is a controversial topic in today’s world of conflicting religions and secular humanist education, but the American Founders gleaned from a variety of sources, and the understanding of law was birthed in the mindset of a Creator God who fashioned the origin of Natural Law. Everything in life stems from an origin point, especially the subjects of truth and morality. The Americans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries built upon the Bible’s understanding of mankind and shaped the American way of life and whose people have enjoyed so many liberties and benefits even today. Yet, human liberty was one of the most basic grievances of the American Revolution and why liberty is birthed out of a biblical mindset in the West is crucial in understanding the birth of the Revolution.

            Historians Gregory Nobles and William McLoughlin chronicled how the Great Awakening, of the early to mid-eighteenth century, influenced the American communities to take more active roles in religious and political affairs. While studying the sermons of the time, McLoughlin came to the conclusion that the Great Awakening had actually fostered the birth of the Revolution simply because the cry for freedom was a natural response to being biblically enlightened in this religious movement (Mangalwadi, 2011, p.380). The cause for freedom and the advancement of liberty after the Revolution gave way to the opportunities for further freedoms, as more evangelicals began to denounce, for example, slavery. The British revival led to their own ending of the slave trade with political help by Christian men such as William Wilberforce. The Second Great Awakening planted the seeds for ending American slavery under the tutelage of antislavery preachers such as Lyman Beecher and Charles Finney. Beecher’s daughter Harriet was the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Mangalwadi, 2011, p.267, 380).

            According to Vishal Mangalwadi, the very idea of human dignity in the West was discovered during the Renaissance. However, it was not the secular promotion of Greek and Latin classics that promoted liberty. This was uniquely a biblical concept (Mangalwadi, 2011, p.59-60). Religion writer Robert J. Hutchinson expounded upon this secular revisionism by pointing to Plato’s The Republic. Plato’s philosophy of the gods creating superior humans to rule inferior ones is in stark contrast to what Hutchinson refers to as human equality “derived from the basic theocentric values of the Hebrew scriptures and intensified in the teachings and deeds of the carpenter of Nazareth” (Hutchinson, 2007, p.183). Any philosophy where the superior humans rule any inferiors is simply the survival-of-the-fittest mentality, but it cannot be categorized as biblical and therefore has little to no bearing on the philosophical influences of the Founders, but it does have influence on the Enlightenment philosophers in Europe. Whereas Jesus called to everyone of every class (John 6:24), secular philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Friedrich Engels promoted the Platonic mindset by referring to Christianity as being made up of “slaves and uneducated persons” (Hutchinson, 2007, p.190), which the New Testament alone can verify as false, with Luke in Colossians 4:14 and Paul in Philippians 3:5, if one focuses on learned men of stature.

            However, this atheistic mindset, which does not reflect the New Testament verses referenced above, is contradicted by the educated American Founders who not only gleaned from many philosophers such as Marcus Tullius Cicero, Sir William Blackstone, Adam Smith, and John Locke, as well as “Greek, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, European, and English history” (Skousen, 1981, p.31-32), but they heavily sourced the Bible which had an undeniable influence on state constitutions. One example is that of Reverend Thomas Hooker. He wrote the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which he based upon Deuteronomy 1. This was the first modern constitutional charter, which was adopted in 1639. His work was not the only one, which drew from the Bible, but the Founders discovered how similar the ancient Israelites records were to that of the Anglo-Saxons’ laws (Skousen, 1981, p.15).  The American principles that took 180 years to build, from 1607 to 1787, were not perfect. It was flawed men who shaped them. Yet, independence was not what the Founders were initially striving for. Many of the Founders felt that America was a transfer of the seat of Empire or rather, an extension (Crocker, 2011, p. 32). However, as philosopher John Locke explains, “…Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life whenever he pleases” (Locke, 2003, p.177). Hutchinson’s work in Chapters 10 & 11 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible focuses on slavery and inalienable rights. The fact - that it was the British multi-denominational ministers who sought to purge slavery in Europe and European colonies - is proven by their biblical renunciation and proof that the Bible never endorsed anything the Southern colonists used to endorse slavery from the Scriptures (Hutchinson, 2007, 175-177). The year 1783 saw the Quakers present Parliament with the first anti-slavery petition and in the years that followed, Britain began to make her own changes in regard to the immoral act by focusing on Americans still holding slaves. This tactic, which was to draw people to “liberated” British soil, actually helped the abolition progress of men like the aforementioned William Wilberforce (Colley, 1992, p.352, 354).

 Author Stephen McDowell confirms the biblical understanding laid down in the Old Testament that “When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom” (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13) (McDowell, 2003). This writer’s view is that some historians’ arguments to discredit the Founders on slavery are largely due to some of the Founders owning slaves themselves. However, the idea that they were all cruel in their treatment is inherently false. If all white slave owners of the era were inherently cruel and they all wished to own slaves, how did white, colonial Christians ever have a voice? Many of them were born into families that already owned slaves. In 1769, Jefferson tried to emancipate the slaves, as did some of the other colonies, but the Crown had passed a law in 1766 that denied any such action (McDowell, 2003). Here is an example of a moral quandary. Romans 13:1 states, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” However, as the Apostle Peter said, ““We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). If such a law was biblically immoral, how were a people that recognized such a “legal” law to proceed?

The belief in natural law was prevalent within a biblical society such as colonial America. Cicero was highly influential on the Founders’ formation of governmental principles. To him, Natural Law was simply an understanding that within the universal laws defined by a Supreme Creator, one must identify that there were “right rules of conduct.” This Supreme Creator gave the reasoning process to humanity and thus mankind shares, with the Creator, this rational process of identifying what the Declaration of Independence calls “the laws of nature and of Nature’s God” (Skousen, 1981, p.39). Since Cicero understood natural law to be true law, this is the conflict with the Enlightenment philosophers who espoused an atheistic approach to rationality. By confusing men with the notion that God does not exist, the natural belief in truth itself is important because mankind inherently seeks truth. The search for truth, in law, was prevalent in the Founders’ grievances written down in the Declaration. From a more deistic approach, Thomas Paine could not recall anywhere the apostles were to have recorded what God is (Paine, 2010, p.49). His earlier work of a more biblically grounded sense, the republican-supported Common Sense, can be ideologically contrasted with the deistic mindset prevalent in Age of Reason. Deism confuses the truth issue by leaving out the revelation standpoint of the entire Bible and denying the Trinity. Alexis de Tocqueville even pondered whether or not he could believe that God just made man, intent on leaving him in intellectual confusion and without answers (Tocqueville, 2003, p.22).

According to an actual Founding Father, Elias Boudinot, even from a standpoint of reason, the Bible indicates that fresh revelation based upon scripture is possible. In his rebuttal to Paine’s Age of Reason, Boudinot chronicles Tertullian and Lactantius’ explanation that “God created all things by his co-omnipotent Son: and the Christian Greeks emphatically call Christ the Logos, meaning both speech and reason, because he is the voice and wisdom of God” (Boudinot, 1801, p.53). Boudinot elaborates upon their research, in which even the philosophers of that era understood the word, logos, to mean the Creator of the world, which also meant Fate and God (Boudinot, 1801, p.53). So the apostles’ understanding of what God was is really explained by the Apostle John’s written word in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the word [logos], and the word was with God, and the word was God.” No moral issue, not slavery or anything else that is deemed morally incomprehensible, can be adequately explained without an understanding of truth, which the Founders gleaned, from a variety of sources that benefited from biblical knowledge & origin.

This understanding of truth coupled with the idea of the three branches of government segues into America’s influential philosophies birthing her segregation from Great Britain. The Greek political writer Polybius was the first known author to consider the strengths of each type of government: The monarchy with its strength to direct government administration, the aristocracy with wealth and interests in national development, and democracy with mass interest for which the other two could not exist (Skousen, 1981, p.194). However, Polybius never saw the three as able to come to equal fruition in what he proposed was a “mixed” constitution. No one is known to have resurrected this idea until the Baron Charles de Montesquieu. After he wrote The Spirit of Laws, it became clear that the Founders gleaned from him, but took his ideas, under the English law, even further. The result of executive, legislative, and judicial powers was represented in America’s three-headed eagle, yet it was fashioned by the Founders, such as John Adams, with the separation of powers in mind (Skousen, 1981, p.194-199). This separation became known as the three branches of government. According to Rosalie Slater, the Founders referenced Isaiah 33:22 which states, “For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; he will save us.” Since the origin of natural law is biblically synonymous as originating with God, the New Testament stance that Jesus is recognized as Judge and King also made God the Lawgiver. This is one explanation as to why America was founded as a constitutional republic and not as a democracy (Slater, 1965, p.242).

These sources do not give lenience to the woes done by Americans to others, in times past or present, under the guise of a nation founded upon Christian principles. De Tocqueville found on his arrival in the early nineteenth century, far too many American fathers who neglected and abused their families. Yet it was under the Christian influence of men like Albert Finney in which another revival had begun to take place in America, turning the hearts of the fathers back toward their children (Mangalwadi, 2011, p.293).  This again returns to the subjects of truth & morality during the time of the Founders. The origin of each, which were considered so important to the people of the Founding & Revolutionary era, must be explained within a biblical context as the Enlightenment cannot adequately explain them. In regard to the Declaration and Constitution, the two documents actually compliment each other. In the charges listed against King George III in the Declaration, he violated three aspects found in the Constitution, which would be derived later.  According to Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn, representation, separation of powers, and limited government are all three arranged within the U.S. Constitution and they were the very grievances that were listed against the British king in the Declaration (Arnn, 2011, p.2-3).

            The interesting concept of revelation is found in Jesus’ words. Not only did he say that the reason he came to the earth was to testify to the truth (John 18:37), but also that he did what he saw the Father doing (John 5:19). This is a revelational concept based out of both the Old & New Testaments. Religion at the time of the Founders was unequivocally a plethora of Christian denominations. The revealed law that God established “takes precedence over man’s useful but flawed reason,” according to Sir William Blackstone, one of the most influential writers on English law that later shaped American law. Blackstone understood that faith and reason were interwoven through practical, legal, and political terms (Stacey, 2008, p.58, 61). When man comes to understand that natural law points to a Creator who fashioned its very conceptual existence, then biblically speaking, man realizes that regardless of governmental authority, all answer to God. This was something the Founders understood, as well as tried to establish, which resulted in revolutionizing the American colonies.

            The American Founders gleaned from a variety of sources, but the understanding of Law was birthed in the mindset of a Creator God who fashioned the origin of Natural Law. As it became increasingly clear that separation from Great Britain was going to be the only course of action, it was because King George III had violated the principles [as well as sent armed troops against his own subjects] that Americans knew were all of mankind’s divine right. As Declaration signer John Witherspoon stated, “On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain; but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign [King George III] till it became absolutely necessary – and indeed, was his own choice” (Barton, 2008, p.93-94). When one reconciles the Christian faith with the basic concepts of liberty, if one is honest in searching for historical truth, one must assess whether or not the early American generations, up to and including the Founders, were right in their own assessment that Jesus is the Son of God and whether their claim to separation from Great Britain was biblically, morally, and truthfully grounded. According to this assessment, the Christian faith sparked the Revolution to begin revealing to mankind, once again, the notion of biblical freedom.

References

Arnn, L.P. (2011). The unity and beauty of the declaration and constitution. Imprimis, 40(12), 1-7.

Barton, D. (2008). Original intent: the courts, the constitution, and religion. Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders, Inc.

Boudinot, E. (1801). The age of revelation or the age of reason shewen to be an age of infidelity. Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc.

Colly, L. (1992). Britons: forging the nation 1707-1787. Great Britain, The Bath Press.

Crocker III, H.W. (2011). The politically incorrect guide to the British Empire. United States: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

De Tocqueville, A. (2003). Democracy in America and two essays on America. New York, NY: Penguin Group Publishing.

Hutchinson, R.J. (2007). The politically incorrect guide to the bible. United States: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Locke, J. & Shapiro, I. (2003). Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Ashford University Library]

Mangalwadi, V. (2011). The book that made your world: how the bible created the soul of western civilization. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

McDowell, S. (2003). The bible, slavery, and America’s founders. Retrieved on October 28, 2012, from http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=120

Paine, T. (2010). The age of reason. United States: Watchmaker Publishing.

Skousen, W.C. (1981). The 5000 year leap. United States: National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Slater, R.J. (1965). Teaching and learning America’s christian history. New York, NY: Foundation for American Christian Education.

Stacey, R. D. (2008). Sir William Blackstone & the common law. Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc. 

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate: A Different, Hopefully, More Biblically-Grounded Approach

• The argument for or against same-sex marriage really boils down to the Bible's stance vs. the selfish desire within mankind to do what he or she desires. the Bible expounds in much detail on the dying to one's self and pursuing a "Spirit-led" lifestyle. The debate cannot begin with homosexuality, but with the progressive heterosexual stance which has become the norm in America, a biblically founded nation. Pre-marital, extra-marital, & everything in between gives rise & promotion to the homosexual debate, because if the former lifestyles are acceptable outside of one man/one woman, why can homosexuals not have their choice? The First Amendment comes up because of God vs. self - or Christianity vs. Atheism. Let's first admit that the two stances are fundamentally incompatible and that self chooses to put man's desires over God's desires. Self only reasons away the solution, ignoring revelation altogether, becoming the standard in each person's life. It has nothing to do with verbal or physical persecution of any person or persons, but everything to do with a heart devoted to God or self. Here is my response and always open for discussion...

         Without getting too deep into heavier, philosophical matters, it is crucial to note that the debate for or against same-sex marriage really boils down to Christianity versus self. Self-desire is usually placed within the confines of the secular humanistic [or atheistic] thought. That being said, the atheist believes in reason only whereas the Christian believes in reason and revelation together. Any person who claims to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage is simply one who has allowed outside influences to mire the Gospel they claim to believe. There is indispensable knowledge pertaining to the Founders and what their desires were for this nation. Religion was a crucial aspect of this. However, as our post-modern society continues to drift further away from its Christian heritage, it becomes increasingly difficult to ascertain truth and morality. The real focus of the same-sex marriage debate is whether or not the “state” should have the final word and if those that control the state are to be regarded, by the people, as morally right.
         Historian Peter Marshall notes that an anti-Puritan phenomenon grew within the last one hundred years and that the Puritan way has largely been maligned into today’s history books. Contrary to what is more commonly known, the Puritans did not arrange marriages, but they could exercise a veto for their children if they felt the marriage was outside the will of God or if they simply felt the timing was too soon. However, they did request counsel from Christian brothers and sisters and as marriage was so important to the communities of the era, it was crucial for each member to recognize that they could not be entirely certain of God’s will, so they must all work together in unity (Marshall, 1977, p.221).
         To note so early a time in America’s history where a generation laid a strict code of conduct, in the area of marriage, is important in understanding that early Americans believed wholeheartedly in the Bible. By the time of the Founders, the same belief in the God of the Bible rings true. Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration states, “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure… are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (Barton, 2008, p.326).
         In the case, Vidal v. Girard’s Executors [1844], a wealthy Frenchman, Stephen Girard, bequeathed a large estate in which he desired that a college would be built excluding clergy and any religious teaching, but it was to have the “purest principles of morality” (Barton, 2008, p. 62-63). However, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision to fulfill his wishes except that the law and Christianity were one. Their verdict in this case was that while clergy were prohibited, in accordance with his wishes, yet laymen were so instructed in that day, that Christian instruction would still be taught at the college.
         No one could exclude Christianity from education because they considered that repugnant. The system of morality that is understood in America is derived from the Bible. Whether or not all people in America believe in Jesus is not the debate, understanding this nation’s moral and religious heritage is crucial to defining any law. This brings the First Amendment to the forefront of the debate. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The freedom of religion issue, from a biblical perspective, is now upon 21st century America. By leaving the door wide open for any and every religion, the case can be made that the Framers inadvertently made a woefully unbiblical error. Jesus himself said that no man comes to the Father but through him (John 14:6). So how can freedom of religion be biblically sound when the God of the Bible is so explicit in his statements? Christianity has begun to lose its relevance as its people are instructed in the classroom in accordance with secular humanism, another religion. In the Supreme Court case mentioned above, Justice Joseph Story stated, “It is unnecessary for us, however to consider… the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of Judaism or Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country” (Barton, 2008, p.63).
         The Bible is very clear in Leviticus 18 that mankind was to adhere to one man and one woman when it comes to the institution of marriage. Israel was to lead by example because the other nations had committed incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. The God of the Bible was setting them apart. When one looks at the Old Testament’s historical lesson of the kings of Israel & Judah, God warned them that if they chose a king as other nations had, he would take their sons and daughters to do with as he willed (1 Samuel 8:7). The lust of the kings, David & Solomon, ultimately split the nation of Israel, which never recovered until 1948.
         The Book of Acts (15:20) instructs that the people are not to fornicate. Fornication is defined as sexual intercourse outside of marriage. However, if marriage is considered, in America, a biblical institution, then those advocating homosexual marriage are attempting to redefine the very meaning of the institution itself. Is such a thing permissible? To redefine an institution of any kind to fit one’s mold, let alone the definition to a word itself? It is a valid question.
          Bishop John Shelby Spong makes the claim that the Church should give its blessing to homosexual partnerships. He says that homosexual men and women have unique gifts to offer humanity and from a biblical perspective, he is right to some degree: “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). However, willful sin accompanying each individual’s gifts and talents ignores the Spirit of God and the revelatory gifts such as conviction as well as transformation of the heart & mind. It is by reason only that this bishop goes on to say, “If my conclusions are valid…” (Sullivan, 2004, p.67, 69). As a member of the clergy, he biblically must adhere to God’s will regarding any issue, not succumbing to the “tolerant” point of view that secular humanism pretends to embrace. Nowhere in the Bible can he find evidence to support his claims.
          While Bishop Spong defines the legalities of the state and the church involved in marriage, he does not define the covenant of marriage, only the contract. The Bible is very intolerant on the marital issue, but Jesus still commands us to loves our brethren, even those steeped in hetero/homosexual lust. This does not mean, however, that Christians embrace biblically sinful issues as normal and lawful. We do not tolerate murder, bestiality, rape, or incest because of the biblical aspect of Americans' differing worldviews. Secular humanism is intolerant in its demanding that Christianity pull down its moral fences and replace it with secular humanism’s own morality. However, where did that morality originate?
          In Ravi Zacharias’ “Oxford in Asia” podcast, he says, “You can’t go on the basis of feeling. When you assume there is such a thing as evil, you assume there is such as thing as good. When you assume there is such a thing as good, you assume there is such a thing as a moral law on which you can differentiate between good and evil. When you posit a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver and that’s whom you’re trying to disprove and not prove, because if there’s no moral lawgiver, then there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, then there’s no good. If there’s no good, then there is no evil.” So secular humanism must provide a moral framework outside of the Bible in which they can provide answers for why the biblically based Christian is wrong in claiming that marriage is for one man and one woman only.
          One issue in American society, which has helped the homosexual debate, has been the co-habitation of heterosexual partners. In light of the biblical institution of marriage, a man and woman are to be married in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7. The Apostle Paul instructs that man is to not touch a woman, but to have a wife. However, in America, it has become so commonplace to embrace the co-habitation and extra- or pre-marital status of heterosexual couples. If one were to debate that issue in the public arena, they would very likely be laughed to scorn.
This makes the case for homosexual relationships. If it is okay to embrace one sexual lifestyle outside of the biblical mandate, then all lifestyles would eventually be embraced at some point, even pedophilia and bestiality. If there is no moral Lawgiver [God], then there is no one, from a secular humanistic point of view, who can claim that any act is immoral. Ravi Zacharias explains, in the same podcast, “Love is expressed in some cultures by loving their neighbors and in other cultures they eat them.” Who is to really say they are wrong?
         Another example of the breakdown of traditional marriage can be found in the cohabitation factor of heterosexual couples. Andrew Cherlin points out that there are four stages of cohabiting that gradually have made marriage a less “mandatory” aspect of societal norms. In Europe specifically, stage one is extreme and rare while stage two makes living together a test to decide on marriage as a future prospect. The last two stages move further still as number three makes it an acceptable alternative and four makes cohabitation nearly identical to marriage (Cherlin, 2004, p.849).
In a study by Sandra McGinnis, she says that cohabiters are statistically more likely to pursue marriage than those that are just dating (McGinnis, 2003, p.112). However, if there is no biblical standard for heterosexual couples and there is no covenant between God, husband, and wife, then really who is to judge whether divorce, remarriage, or homosexual relationships really matter at all? One could redefine the institution of family as we know it and then the degradation of the family unit really becomes a non-issue in and of itself.
         One can note that while watching certain programs on television, there are very handsome, well built, homosexual men who instruct married heterosexual couples on dressing well, redecorating their homes, and so on. Homosexual hairdressers are seen as fun, whimsical, and the life of the party. When one is constantly bombarded with visual media of any sort, it is no secret that people become numb to what they see, in terms of sex and violence. Is it not interesting that producers have decided to search out these people to host their new programs?
         Recently, this writer watched a homosexual documentary called “The Adonis Factor,” on the lifestyle itself, out in [mainly] California. One of the key focuses of the documentary was the constant pressure to be in top physical condition. One had to be seen in the best of clothes and in the closest knit of circles or risk being outcast and shunned by the rest of the homosexual community in those areas they filmed and interviewed in. One can make an assessment that there was much vanity and many of the men enjoyed the sexual pursuits rather than a monogamous relationship, but even the most celebrated men would come clean on the pressures to stay fit, the drug use, and the overall desire to just be needed and loved, which many of them did not feel they were getting in such a lifestyle (Hines, 2010). Everything about the documentary was about the freedom to please self. Which, technically, under the freedom of religion aspect of the Bill of Rights, is “legal” and would conflict with any sodomy laws given the option to choose secular humanism as their religion of choice.
         There are some basic factors to consider without continuing to hammer home the religious and ideological debate. If everyone on the planet married one person of the opposite sex and they stayed faithful to one another, could not every sexually transmitted disease be wiped out within one generation? Do children respond to a loving father and mother in one home, under one roof, better than any other domestic situation? Consider another factor: According to Richard Rogers, of the University of Colorado, “Those who are married consistently exhibit lower mortality than those who are not” (Rogers, 1995, p. 515, 516). He elaborates by pointing out that married [heterosexual] couples tend to focus on each other’s health while single people tend to take up more risky endeavors as well as live a less balanced lifestyle, in terms of drinking and eating habits.
         Right from the first chapter of the book, “Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political,” author Kathleen Lahey, has some statements that beg questioning. She attempts to promote the historical fact that yes; indeed, homosexual relationships have been common “since time immemorial” (Alderson, 2004, p.15). Leviticus 18:24 supports that statement. However, murder is chronicled as being done by the third person, Cain, mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 4:8). So from a secular humanistic point of view, there is no origin for morality in terms of murder either, so why does Kathleen Lahey not make a case for the issue of murder also since it cannot be substantiated as something immoral? People cannot pick & choose what they themselves define as right or wrong. There must be an absolute to which all of humanity can refer back to. Otherwise, one's pleasure may be at the expense of another's pain and there would be no justification for reprisal since the former could not be accused of having done anything immoral.
           Murder is defined by a biblical worldview. One might ask how one can equate homosexuality with murder. From within a biblical framework, all sin is sin worth repenting of and humanity is to be restored to the Creator. If the men mentioned in the documentary above are so desperate for true love and affection, should they not all have found it by now, indulging in any pleasure they chose? “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets [biblical morality], even the righteousness of God [moral Lawgiver] through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith” (Romans 3:21-25).
Lahey’s interpretation of marriage can be deemed false when she says that the nature of marriage has changed over thousands of years (Alderson, 2004, p.15). If that were true, then why do the majority of Americans understand marriage as being traditionally of biblical origin - dating back thousands of years? Kevin Alderson, in the same book, interviews homosexual couples to get an accurate grasp on their real-life perspectives. As with the couple, LaCroix & Keener, the focus of the homosexual couple is on societal concerns and equality issues, never recognizing a covenant relationship with God. One comment during their interview was this, “We don’t need organized religion to recognize us or a particular church for that matter” (Alderson, 2004, p.113). However, they still demand approval from the church and the state. Sexual preferences and lifestyles cannot be equated to race and gender issues in terms of equality. Also, if they do not need a faith and/or church to recognize their “marriage,” then why call it marriage at all? One cannot simply change the meaning of a word, but in today’s post-modern worldview that Western Civilization has been brought up in, there really is nothing else for couples like LaCroix & Keener to grab hold of.
         When one sees the benefits of a biblically founded marriage and how the government recognizes such an institution, how is it fair for those in heterosexual marriages to see their beloved institution being torn apart by those who do not believe in their way of life? Why is the Christian the one deemed intolerant in this case when such a breakdown is happening through the machinations of non-Christians?
         Taking an objective look at the First Amendment, it is very clear that the Founders were focused on the Christian religion when the Bill of Rights was established. George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and considered to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, stated, “All men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others” (Barton, 2008, p. 29).
         However, “religion” is itself, a broad term and because of it, America finds itself in the predicament it is in today. When the state [or government] has wrested away from the people every educational & lawful avenue that produces biblical fruit, all that is left is a secular humanistic agenda. The only fruit it can produce is the complete opposite of everything found to be morally right in the Bible. The real focus of the same-sex marriage debate is whether or not the “state” should have the final word and if those that control the state are to be regarded, by the people, as morally right.
So if the “state” has the final word from a reasoned perspective, then yes, homosexuality will become a norm within America and legally so, from the secular humanistic ideology & religious point of view, believing it is morally right. However, if God has the final word, from a people understanding revelation as well as reason, will America repent of its heterosexual and homosexual lusts and stay true to its biblical roots? This country is not a Christian nation because everyone here believes in Jesus, but because of the spiritual foundation upon which it was built. As President John Adams once stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (Barton, 2008, p.188).

References

Alderson, K. & Lahey, K. (2004). Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. London, ON, CAN: Insomniac Press.
Barton, D. (2008). Original intent: the courts, the constitution, and religion. 5th Edition. Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press.
Cherlin, A.J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4), 848-861.
Hines, C. (Director). (2010). The Adonis Factor. [Documentary]. United States: Break Glass Pictures.
Marshall, P.J. & Manuel, D.B. (1977). The light and the glory: 1492-1793. 2nd Edition. Revell Publishing.
McGinnis, S.L. (2003). Cohabitating, Dating, and Perceived Costs of Marriage: A Model of Marriage Entry. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65(1), 105-116.
Rogers, R.G. (1995). Marriage, Sex, and Mortality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 515-526.
Sullivan, A. (May 2004). Same-sex marriage: pro and con. Westminster, MD: Knopf Publishing Group.