Tag Archives: freedom


William Andrew Dillard
Parson to Person
The founding documents of the United States of America would have us to believe all men are created equal. Rather than take issue with equality in creation, let the reader consider that the very moment one comes into this world he/she is both equal and unequal. One’s parental status, environment, socio-economic level, and I.Q. does not provide for equality but for inequality.
Though flawed as all governmental systems of men are, that inequality has, with the help of God, produced the greatest nation on earth. Capitalism’s principles are based on the Judeo/Christian ethic of theology, morals, and individual initiatives. It is a nation that evil works relentlessly to undo.
Now, there are those who labor to enrich themselves by pandering to those who will not work, will not pursue an education, but will demand in violent destructiveness that those who do have initiative, and who do work should support them. Government folks in high places push this agenda for their own obvious purpose of staying in power through “votes by pandering,” and seem determined to deprive the nation of capitalistic enterprise. One wonders: do they believe the government printing presses can keep the economy afloat forever?
As an aside, many years ago, this writer was placed on a legislative ad hoc committee to draft childcare legislation. In some of the discussions with more liberal committee members over the issue of assurance of preventing failure, it was my premise then as now, if there is not freedom to fail, there is no freedom: if there is not freedom for all, then there is no freedom at all.
Obviously, it was the Creator’s holy will that men have free moral agency: the freedom to win; the freedom to lose, the freedom to live; the freedom to die. Men who reject God and pursue the premise of evolution are determined to change that, but it is a determination destined to fail. Still, there is a sense in which all men are equal: all are sinners, and all are condemned by virtue of sin. The good news is that God provides for all men the freedom to partake of His marvelous grace, and thereby escape the destiny of sin while gaining the wealth and joys of heaven. But that freedom exercised makes men unequal.
Thus does 2 Cor. 6:14 admonish believers to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Let there be rejoicing in heaven and earth that the lovely Lord Jesus: the Creator/Christ, has by His own blood purchased for all who love Him the freedom to be unequal.

Leave a comment

Filed under dillard


William Andrew Dillard

Just imagine a world in which clocks and calendars were either non-existent or largely meaningless if they did exist. This world would host men of great talent in musical arts, metal craft, animal husbandry, etc. Moreover, this imaginary world existed in an ideal climate all year long, century after century. Additionally, there were not a lot of regulatory laws, making human freedom the best humanity has ever enjoyed. Furthermore, the diseases that plague humanity today were unknown in this pristine environment. Does this sound divine; too good to be true; something that could only exist in one’s imagination? Well think again!
The world under consideration did in fact exist for a long 1656 years, from Adam to Noah. The antediluvian world though devoid of most conveniences enjoyed today, had a lot going for it including individual longevity approaching one thousand years. It could be called the age of experimentation. What will sinful mankind do, left largely to himself? Will he be grateful for his blessings, and seek after his Creator? Will he respect himself and his neighbor, and seek to make a better world for himself and his offspring?
In Genesis Chapter Six, God looked down to see what was going on in the world of men. What He saw was corruption; moral degradation, base sensuality reigning as king in an epicurean, drunken, sex crazy world. It was a world of faithlessness. Thus, it repented Him that He had made the human race, and He determined to destroy it.
Today, in spite of vaunted progress, the world is quite similar to that ancient society. It is a sign. Jesus said that when He comes again, the world will be as it was in the days of Noah. Matt 24:37-39.
But consider that it is not the absence of sin that divinity seeks in mankind. That is impossible. But it is the presence of faith. When the Son of man shall come, will He find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8. In the absence of faith, men, nations, and the world are wrong, and they degenerate into the sensual, violent quagmire of Noah’s day.
The good news is that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was a man of faith; a righteous man, perfect in his generations. It would be his lot to inherit a new world, a new beginning. Do you see a pattern here? People of faith in God and His eternal Word will inherit the universe with Christ Jesus, while those who submerge themselves in base pleasures of the flesh are destined to loss of life’s reward at best and eternal condemnation at worse. How much of your life is given to matters of faith in God and His Word? Every person is either contributing to the cause of Christ and goodness in the world or else to the cause of Satan and evil in the world. Sin cannot be eliminated from our world, but it can be repented of, and faith can find a dwelling and growing place in human hearts. The age of experimentation is history, but it bears unerring witness of an inevitable conclusion. In keeping with the pattern of the ages: in the absence of faith, no one may be right in the sight of God.

Leave a comment

Filed under dillard


William Andrew Dillard
Philemon 1:10

A few years ago, my family toured the state of California from the Oregon border to San Diego. Of course, this included a couple of days in San Francisco. While there, a boat tour was enjoyed in the bay and around the federal prison on Alcatraz Island. As the tour boat circled the island of rock, one could see why this now-closed maximum-security federal prison was once known as “The Rock.”
There was row after row of cage-like cells that housed well-known inmates such as Al Capone and Robert Stroud, the “Birdman of Alcatraz.” One visitor there was left with some unforgettable images.
For decades, men imprisoned there as just punishment for their crimes, longed to be free. Evidence still told the story. He saw the name “Jesus” scrawled on a wall. In another, a Bible lay on a shelf. Together they quietly spoke of the greatest of all freedoms, even for a physical prisoner.
Paul knew such while imprisoned in Rome. Regarding himself as a “prisoner of Christ,” he used his incarceration to help other inmates discover what it means to be an eternally forgiven, dearly loved child of God. Paul wrote to Philemon,“ I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds (Philem. 1:10).
Barred windows and doors represent one kind of confinement. Physical paralysis, inescapable poverty, and prolonged unemployment are others. Perhaps you endure another. None are to be desired—yet who would trade “imprisonment” with Christ for life “on the outside” without Him? For Jesus is truth, and the truth shall make you free, indeed.

Leave a comment

Filed under dillard

Religious Freedom and Hilary Clinton

I have deep held religious beliefs that are based upon the Bible. These are being challenged by Hillary Clinton who says I do not have the right to these beliefs. The following article shows the truth of what her statement means to me, a Bible believer.

I want to be as brief as possible. This is about Hillary and her statement that is being whitewashed for the masses. That simply means that her controversial statement of religions will have to change their beliefs is not being reported by the major media because of how it would effect her campaign.

I searched long and hard for the transcript of her speech at the “World Women Conference.” Sadly, the mainstream media paraphrased much of the speech and left that portion out. It is on “youtube.” Some one has taken the time to put it on paper in context. I have watched and listened to the speech and the context and believe she is calling for a change in religious beliefs being mandated. She wants to tell you what to believe.

MRC Newsbusters have this as her comment – Yes, we’ve cut the material mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we pass don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper.

Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I – (Applause) as I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century, and not just for women but for everyone, and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.

Do not believe this is in context go to youtube and type in “Hillary – Womens World Conference.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air said this – David Gibson suggested this might be Hillary Clinton’s “clinging to guns and religion” moment, and he may be right — assuming she survives the corruption scandals in the first place. Last night, Hillary told the Women in the World Summit that the path to Abortion Nirvana will only open up by changing religion, culture, and values to accommodate it:

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is. As Hillary admits here — albeit unwittingly — the at-will destruction of the unborn goes against religious beliefs, long-held cultural values, and the structural “biases” that exist to recognize the value of human life. That’s what the “clump of cells” fallacy has to overcome, and as Hillary and the Left have discovered, it’s a tall order. And it’s not just abortion, but also same-sex marriage and forced participation in it, euthanasia dressed up as “right to die” movements, and the rest.


Kirsten Powers who is a liberal wrote on April 29th, 2015 in USA Today, a liberal paper – This darn world just won’t stop clinging to religion.

But Hillary Clinton is on the case. At last week’sWomen in the World Summit, Clinton explained to her high-end Manhattan audience that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” regarding “reproductive health care.” She was talking about both the United States and unnamed “far-away countries.”

If Clinton is going to complain about cultural codes, perhaps she should dispense with the “reproductive health care” euphemism and just say “abortion” and “contraception.” Then she should explain why she thinks she, or anyone else, has the right to dictate what religious people believe about either issue.

We know she wants to be president — but does she think she is God, too?

Snopes says this is a false statement.

Politifact says – The headlines from conservative media that we found such as Fox News focused on abortion: “Hillary: ‘Religious beliefs’ must change for sake of abortion.”

Clinton, who is a supporter of abortion rights, didn’t use the word abortion, but she did mention “reproductive health care,” which can include abortion as well as birth control or prenatal health care.

But her statement is somewhat different from Bush’s claim. She didn’t say that a “progressive agenda” should dictate religious beliefs — her overall point was that countries need to do more to help protect women’s rights to education, health care, and to live safely — and that to do so requires enforcing laws and changing religious beliefs.

Clinton’s speech didn’t only pertain to far flung countries — she was making a statement to religious conservatives in the United States.

“America moves forward when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain companies with religious objections can opt out of a mandate under the Affordable Care Act to provide free contraception to their employees.

“One would like to imagine that Clinton was speaking only about primitive cultures where children are forced into marriage and childbearing, or where genital cutting is common,” wrote Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post. “But we know that she also meant religious conservatives closer to home whose beliefs get in the way. She explicitly criticized Hobby Lobby for not paying for its employees’ contraception.”

Then Politifact makes their own decision as to what is said, – So the only area where she says beliefs must change that has any possible connection to domestic issues is in the reference to the overall category of reproductive health.

Bush is making Clinton’s remarks sound far more sweeping than they actually are. Clinton was talking about specific issues affecting women’s health and safety, in both a global and domestic context.  We rate this statement Half True. How do you like a legeral left leaning news source in partnership with the “Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald (liberal papers) interpreting for you what you can plainly read and understand. They treat you as if you don’t have a brain.



Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary, Uncategorized

Immigrants Not Taught Freedom Of Religion

Immigrants Not Taught Freedom Of Religion


Liberals keep trying to sneak political correctness into America any way they can. We should not be surprised that they have targeted the study materials for the civics portion of the naturalization exam. Study materials have now changed references to our First Amendment Freedom of Religion with the weaker and more politically correct expression Freedom of Worship. While the difference may seem small, the implications are huge.

Even foreign dictatorships have no problem with offering their citizens Freedom of Worship. This is because Freedom of Worship implies only the freedom to express personal religious beliefs when your are inside your church after you have closed the door, or are within the confines of government-approved places of worship for government-approved meetings and events. This inaccurate and very limited view of religious liberty teaches that faith should be a private affair confined to designated areas. They want people to think that their freedom ends whenever they leave the four walls of their church. This certainly is not how our Founders envisioned the intrinsic constitutional rights of all Americans. Our American right to the Free Expression of Religion allows real freedom in choosing where and how we express our faith. Our First Amendment does not allow excessive government regulation about Freedom of Religion.

Unfortunately, the official study materials for the naturalization exam do not reflect this right as it is given in the Constitution. It is especially important that those preparing for and taking the U.S. naturalization exam have an accurate understanding of the foundational freedoms that they will enjoy as citizens of the United States. Many public schools are also starting to embrace this watered-down version of our most basic right, in order to indoctrinate the next generation with a distorted view of American government. It’s time to stand up to these attacks and make sure that our children know that our U.S. Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of Freedom of Religion.


We recommend Who Killed the American Family?

Contributing Editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the Founder and President of Eagle Forum, a national radio show host, and a best-selling author.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Why Pamela Geller Is Hated

Dennis Prager Dennis Prager

Why Pamela Geller Is Hated

May 19, 2015

Pamela Geller — the woman whose group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, organized the Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas — may be the most hated person in America right now. She is certainly the left’s chief villain. And, sad to say, though few conservatives hate her, more than a few have condemned her.

The question is why?

Here are three reasons.

Reason One: The left Hates Those Who Confront Evil

The first and most important reason is a rule of life that I wrote about in a recent column explaining the left’s hatred for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

Those who don’t fight evil hate those who do.

This is a defining characteristic of the American left. That is why the left loathed President Ronald Reagan for labeling the Soviet Union an “evil empire:” He judged and confronted Communism, the greatest evil in the world after World War II.

Today, the world’s greatest evil is Islamism (the movement to impose Islam and its Sharia on society). Just as the left loathed anti-Communists, it loathes anti-Islamists, chief among whom is Netanyahu, the prime minister of the country that the Islamists most hate, the country that most confronts violent Islam — and not coincidentally the country the international left most hates.

But the left hates anti-Islamists generally, not just Netanyahu. They have successfully demonized anti-Islamists and even critics of Islam as “Islamophobes,” meaning anti-Muslim “bigots” and “haters.” Pamela Geller is now chief among them.

Reason Two: Moral Confusion

Geller and her group are widely labelled as “haters” and “Islamophobes” for caricaturing Muhammad. But the highly successful producers of the hit Broadway show that mocks Mormonism, “The Book of Mormon,” are not labelled “haters,” let alone “Mormon-phobes”. Similarly, the “artist” who created “Piss Christ,” the infamous photograph of a crucifix in a jar of his urine, is also not labeled a hater or a “Christiano-phobe.”

Why is that? Because neither Christianity nor Mormonism produces evil that needs to be fought. The Muslim world, however, is producing tens of thousands of murderers and millions more sympathizers; and those who criticize Islam and confront Islamism are hated because those who don’t fight evil hate those who do.

Another example of moral confusion is that Geller is accused of “provoking” Islamists to murder people. Even some conservatives have taken this position.

To best show this poorly reasoned logic, let’s imagine that some Mormons murdered members of the audience and some of the actors at a performance of “The Book of Mormon.” Who do you think The New York Times editorial page would have blamed — the producers of the show that mocked Mormonism (for “provoking” the murderers) or the Mormon murderers? The murderers, of course. Again, imagine that some Christians had murdered museum curators at whose museums “Piss Christ” had been displayed. Would the Times editorial page have blamed the “artist,” Andres Serrano, and the museum curators (for “provoking” the Christian murderers) or the Christian murderers?

Reason Three: Lack of Courage

America calls itself, in the final words of the National Anthem, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” This description no longer applies — not only to the left-wing intellectual and media elite but also to the increasingly large segment of the American people that the left has influenced. Many Americans no longer cherish freedom as Americans always have and too many exhibit little courage.

Contrast American reactions to Pamela Geller with European reactions to Charlie Hebdo. After Islamists murdered 12 editors and writers of the Charlie Hebdo staff, millions of French citizens gathered to protest the murders and announce “Je suis Charlie.” There were very few French voices blaming Charlie Hebdo for “provoking” the murderers, or for being “haters.” And, it is worth noting, some of the caricatures of Muhammad published in the French magazine were truly obscene — unlike the caricatures produced by Pamela Geller’s contest which, so far as I’ve seen, were only caricatures and cartoons.

Likewise the month after the Charlie murders, courageous Danes organized a public event called “Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” to show support for Charlie Hebdo and for freedom of speech. That “provoked” an Islamist to murder two people and wound five police officers that day and the next. But Danes supported the organizers of the event.

And a German newspaper was firebombed after republishing some of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons.

But in America, there were no comparable demonstrations on behalf of Pamela Geller. Instead, there were widespread condemnations. The New York Times editorial page even denied that her cartoon contest was done on behalf of freedom of speech. And hundreds of left-wing members of PEN, the worldwide writers’ organization dedicated to freedom of speech, vehemently protested the decision of the American chapter of PEN to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to Charlie Hebdo.

This combination — of the steep moral decline of the American left; the inability of too many Americans to reason morally; and the greater value increasingly placed on protecting (certain) people’s feelings than on protecting freedom of speech — is why a woman who did nothing more than organize a contest to draw cartoons of Muhammad may be the most reviled American alive.


Dennis Prager’s latest book, “The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code,” was published this month by Regnery. He is a nationally syndicated radio show host and creator of PragerUniversity.com.

Copyright 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

Real freedom took real courage


By Chris Stirewalt


Political courage these days is generally defined as a politician doing something that might make it harder to get re-elected.


Real civic leadership has always been about convincing people to do what’s right and hard rather than what’s popular and easy. Courage is part of that. People are less likely to follow a leader who asks them to sacrifice and struggle when he or she will not.


But now, that sacrifice generally refers to a politician having to spend more of other peoples’ money on a primary election contest or, in rare cases, moving to a lucrative career in punditry or influence peddling sooner than expected.


The courage of defying voters to give lobbyists and press hounds what they want in exchange for a lobbying job or to join the press pack is not exactly shivering with the troops at Valley Forge. In fact it’s not really courage at all.


On Independence Day, Americans do not celebrate actual independence from Britain, which didn’t formally come until the signing of the Treaty of Paris on Sept. 3, 1783. Nor do we celebrate the start of the revolution that would make us free, which began in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775 and lasted for eight years.


What we celebrate is the act of declaring our independence; the ratification and signing of a document that was meaningless without the might of arms to make it so. What we celebrate are the ideas in the Declaration of Independence, that most remarkable piece of political writing in history, and the courage of the politicians who engaged in what was seen by the duly established authorities as treason.


King George III claimed to derive his authority from God and had dominion over the official religion of the land. These rebels were said to defy even Heaven in what they said and wrote in Philadelphia that sweltering summer.


A cottage industry has sprung up around diminishing the sacrifices and nobility of the Founding Fathers. And to be sure, they were flawed men. For those who seek to find the flaws in the American experiment, it is perhaps irresistible to see its founders in a negative light. Perhaps it would just seem impossibly square to extoll their virtues. Cynicism sounds savvier, especially for those who struggle to see the arc of history.


But as you celebrate today, remember the story of Richard Stockton. He was born to a wealthy New Jersey family that helped found what we now know as Princeton University. Stockton had even been given the chance to travel to London to appear before George III to make a presentation to the king from the college’s trustees.


Stockton had struggled to find a way that the 13 colonies could be self-governing but still subject to the crown, the kind of compromise that would later come to Canada and other British possessions. He argued for such a deal and even counseled with leaders including Edmund Burke on crafting such a plan.


Back at home, Stockton was elected to the Second Continental Congress. By 1775, the burden of taxes and punitive laws imposed by the crown convinced him that George III had no intention of granting autonomy. When discussion turned to declaring independence, he was prepared to sign. With his pen strokes, he, a celebrated and elite British subject, became an outlaw and a rebel.


Before the year was out, Stockton would be captured by loyalists, have his estate looted and burned and be turned over to the British army in chains. His family fled and Stockton was thrown in a prison in New York where he was badly mistreated and left in failing health.


Stockton endured his captivity and was eventually released after George Washington protested the abuse. But Stockton’s health never recovered and he would die at home in 1781 without living to see the country he helped found victorious and independent.


So the next time somebody tells you that politicians today lack courage because they refuse to defy the will of their constituents to please lobbyists and pundits, remember Richard Stockton and what real political courage looked like. It wasn’t about K Street expense-account dinners and celebrity status. It was about sacrificing everything for the sake of an idea.


A very happy Independence Day to you and yours from the Fox News First team and the whole family here at the Fox News Washington Bureau.


1 Comment

Filed under Commentary

The Korean War


The Korean War started June 25, 1950

American Minute with Bill Federer


“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE” is the inscription on the Korean War Memorial in Washington, D.C.


The Korean War started JUNE 25, 1950.


Communist North Korea invaded South Korea, killing thousands.


Outnumbered South Korean and American troops, as part of a UN “police” action, fought courageously against the Communist Chinese and North Korean troops, who were supplied with arms and MIG fighters from the Soviet Union.


General Douglas MacArthur, who led the United Nations Command from 1950 to 1951, made a daring landing of troops at Inchon, deep behind North Korean lines, and recaptured the city of Seoul.


General Douglas MacArthur warned in a speech to the Salvation Army, December 12, 1951, stating:


History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline.


There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”


With temperatures sometimes forty degrees below zero, and Washington politicians limiting the use of air power against the Communists, there were nearly 140,000 American casualties in:


the defense of the Pusan Perimeter and Taego;


the landing at Inchon and the freeing of Seoul;


the capture of Pyongyang;


the Yalu River where nearly a million Communist Chinese soldiers invaded;


the Battles of Changjin Reservoir, Old Baldy, White Horse Mountain, Heartbreak Ridge, Pork Chop Hill, T-Bone Hill, and Siberia Hill.


President Harry S Truman stated while lighting the National Christmas Tree, December 24, 1952:


“Tonight, our hearts turn first of all to our brave men and women in Korea. They are fighting and suffering and even dying that we may preserve the chance of peace in the world…


And as we go about our business of trying to achieve peace in the world, let us remember always to try to act and live in the spirit of the Prince of Peace. He bore in His heart no hate and no malice – nothing but love for all mankind.


We should try as nearly as we can to follow His example. We believe that all men are truly the children of God…


As we pray for our loved ones far from home – as we pray for our men and women in Korea, and all our service men and women wherever they are – let us also pray for our enemies.


Let us pray that the spirit of God shall enter their lives and prevail in their lands…Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairer place.”


President Dwight Eisenhower’s son, John Sheldon Doud Eisenhower, served in Korea during the war. First Lady Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower stated in a conversation at the Doud home regarding him:


“He has a mission to fulfill and God will see to it that nothing will happen to him till he fulfills it.”


Fighting in Korea was halted July 27, 1953, with the signing of an armistice at Panmunjom.


At the College of William and Mary, May 15, 1953, Dwight Eisenhower stated:


“It is necessary that we earnestly seek out and uproot any traces of communism.”


Dwight Eisenhower stated December 24, 1953, lighting the National Christmas Tree:


“The world still stands divided in two antagonistic parts. Prayer places freedom and communism in opposition one to the other.


The Communist can find no reserve of strength in prayer because his doctrine of materialism and statism denies the dignity of man and consequently the existence of God.


But in America…religious faith is the foundation of free government, so is prayer an indispensable part of that faith…The founders of this, our country, came first to these shores in search of freedom…to live…beyond the yoke of tyranny.”


Bill FedererThe Moral Liberal contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill’s books here.


Leave a comment

Filed under Characters



Prayer for Persecutors and Freedom


The Separate Baptists in Virginia had divided into two associations for the convenience of the messengers, and on May 14, 1774, the Southern District met in the Banister Baptist Church of Halifax County. There they transacted one of the most important aspects of an associational ministry, a phase that is all but dead among us in these days. For three or four years there had been severe persecutions against the Baptists in many parts of Virginia. Letters were received at their association from preachers confined in prison, particularly from David Tinsley, then in the Chesterfield jail. The hearts of their brethren were affected at their sufferings, in consequence of which they: “Agreed to set apart the second and third Saturdays in June as public fast days, in behalf of our poor blind persecutors, and for the releasement of our brethren.”


Those two days of prayer were Saturday, June 11, and Saturday, June 18, 1774, and the saints prayed for the enlightenment of the spiritually blind persecutors and the freedom of their ministers. We ought not to be surprised to observe that during that decade, the Separate Baptists “achieved their greatest growth . . . with 221 churches and unconstituted local bodies with 9,842 members.” Some of the persecutors were converted and became Baptist preachers, and freedom of religion was gained for the whole state of Virginia.


Dr. Dale R. Hart: From: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I. (Thompson/Cummins) pp. 240.

The post 162 – June 11 – THIS DAY IN BAPTIST HISTORY PAST appeared first on The Trumpet Online.


Leave a comment

Filed under Church History

106– April 16 – This Day in Baptist History Past

Burning Pepper to Prevent Preaching
John Young was one of the courageous Baptist preachers in Virginia during the 18th century who suffered for the freedom to preach according to conscience. He died in a good old age on April 16, 1817.
In 1908, one of his granddaughters gave the following interesting information of John Young. “He was converted and began preaching. He, with others, was imprisoned for preaching what he believed to be the truth. His mother, who had care of his motherless children, visited him regularly once a week taking the children with her. Each preacher was in a room to himself. Each room had one small window, placed so high up in the wall that only a patch of sky could be seen, nothing on the earth. The congregations of the different ministers learned, each, which was his pastor’s window. Once a week John Young’s congregation (and I suppose the other’s too), would assemble under his window, and run up a flag, to let him know they were there and he would preach to them. In this way a great many people were converted. The authorities said, ‘ These heretics make more converts in jail than they do out ‘, so when the congregation assembled, that pastor was smoked out by burning pepper to prevent his preaching.”
Young had been arrested on June 13, 1771, ostensibly for preaching without a license.
Dr. Dale R. Hart: Adapted from:  This Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins Thompson /, p. 155.
The post 106– April 16 – This Day in Baptist History Past appeared first on The Trumpet Online.

1 Comment

Filed under Church History