Tag Archives: morality


William Andrew Dillard

Twenty-first century America is a land of self-exaltation. To many folks, laws, rules, guidelines reek with negative denotations. They cramp the individual style, and the most important thing to them is doing or being whatever one wants. So, one by one rules and guidelines are discarded and laws are changed to eliminate guilt. Wrongdoing is made justifiable and acceptable to the majority by making it legal. The Judeo-Christian ethic and morality that made this country a great nation is being summarily discarded in favor of personal desires long recognized as immoral.
Enter the debate on morality. What is moral? Is it not the high standard of living, and judgments graciously given to us by the Creator? But morality has become a negative to a godless generation. The same generation does not want to be classified as immoral either. So, is there a middle ground? That mindset employs a different term heard in public educational institutions and in other places as well. It is “amoral.” Codes of life; identification of what is good and evil; separation of sexes, etc., are all addressed in what is perceived to be the neutral ground of amorality. But does that vacuum exist? May civilization exist without clear guidelines of right and wrong?
By word definition, the prefix “a” is a negative as is the prefix “im.” Thus, the definition of “amoral” is “not moral.” The definition of “immoral” is “not moral.” They mean the same thing. “Amoral” is just another way of saying “immoral.” There is no moral vacuum! There is no middle ground!
Still, the world persists in the madness of depraved human nature. It is an indicator of the last days of the age. This is not happening in America alone, but is a worldwide ecumenical movement to exalt sinful humanity as indicated in the prophetic second Psalm. The few times it is mentioned in the Bible that God laughs, is in the same condemnatory context of Psalm 2:2-4. One day the “amorality” of the world will give way to screams for rocks and mountains to fall on them to hide them from the face of Him Who is coming. So, cut it clean! It is either moral or it is immoral! There is no moral vacuum! Such is only the figment of imagination in the mind of depraved humanity.

Leave a comment

Filed under dillard

George Washington’s Farewell Address, September19, 1796

George Washington’s Farewell Address, September19, 1796

American Minute with Bill Federer

The Lord of the Rings” by J.R.R. Tolken described man’s insatiable lust for “the ring of power.”

Throughout history, kings killed to get power and kings killed to keep power. In a real sense, George Washington had the power…and gave it up…twice.

The first time was when he resigned his commission as General of the Continental Army in 1783.

When the American-born painter Benjamin West was in England painting the portrait of King George III, the King asked what General Washington planned to do now that he had won the war.

West replied:

They say he will return to his farm.”

King George exclaimed:

If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Later, after serving two terms as President, Washington decided to return to his Mt. Vernon farm.

This was similar to Roman leader Cincinnatus, who twice led the Roman Republic to victory in battle then returned to his farm, resisting the temptation to be dictator.

The world watched in unbelief as President George Washington delivered his Farewell Address, SEPTEMBER 19, 1796, stating:

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…”

Washington continued:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…

Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…

Morality is a necessary spring of popular government…Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation?”

Washington warned further:

And of fatal tendency…to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; – often a small but artful and enterprising minority…

They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People and to usurp for the themselves the reins of Government;

destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…”

Washington added:

This leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism…

Disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual…

(who) turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty…

The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…”

Washington concluded:

Let there be no change by usurpation… It is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”, stating:

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…”

The 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 History

Who Really Won the Hobby Lobby Battle?

Three Propositions to Consider


September 1, 2014|11:32 am


A protester dressed as a copy of the Bible joins groups demonstrating outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 30, 2014.

WASHINGTON — While Hobby Lobby won its lawsuit against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate, it was a battle already won by liberals and the only issue in the court case was how thorough the Right’s political defeat would be, Philip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life at University of Notre Dame, argued Sunday during a roundtable at the American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby represented “an overwhelming victory for the political Left,” Muñoz said.

Other participants of the roundtable, “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby: The Morning After Pill, Corporate Convictions, and the Future of Religious Liberty,” which was sponsored by Christians in Political Science, included Alliance Defense Fund’s Gregory S. Baylor, Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s Greg Lipper, and American Jewish Committee’s Richard T. Foltin.

Muñoz presented three propositions, noting that since he was not 100 percent confident, he did not want to call them three conclusions.

1) “The Hobby Lobby decision was a victory for Hobby Lobby, but was not a victory for the cultural Right or believers of traditional sexual morality.”

While the legal question was about who should pay for birth control coverage, Muñoz said, undergirding the debate was a fight over “sexual morality as expressed in governmental policy and law,” or “what will the law teach about sex?”

“Any laws concerning sexuality necessarily substantiates teaching about the morality of human sexuality,” he said. “That’s inescapable and there’s no getting around it. Laws that regulate sexuality in some way teach something. So what is it they teach?”

Generally speaking, Muñoz explained, there are two broad understandings about sexuality: The “traditional view” that says “men and women are called to live to a normative standard of human sexuality that they themselves do not create;” and a “modern view” that says “men and women are and ought to be their own authors of what constitutes the proper use of sexuality.”

Muñoz believes these different views of human sexuality are at the core of almost all “culture war” battles. From that perspective, the Left already won the fight when the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” was passed and the Obama administration was provided the authority to implement the birth control mandate, he argued. The Hobby Lobby case did not address the issue of whether there should be a birth control mandate but to what extent those who hold the traditional view would be accommodated.

“The Hobby Lobby case wasn’t really a contest between the traditional and modern views of human sexuality. The only dispute was how thoroughly the modern view was going to route the traditional view,” he said.

In other words, the issue in the case was whether “the modern view was going to coerce the traditional view directly [and] impose its view on traditional religious believers … or only indirectly through generally applicable taxes?”

2) The norm of the birth control mandate was left untouched by Hobby Lobby and that norm is hostile to traditional religious beliefs.

The birth control mandate teaches a norm that is consistent with the modern view and is hostile to the traditional view because it is consistent with the view that sex should be disconnected from children, Muñoz said.

“The nature of law is to specify what is right and wrong, and thereby to teach what is good and bad,” he explained, and in the case of the birth control mandate, “the Obama administration aggressively teaches that sex and babies should have nothing to do with one another unless you choose for them to have something to do with one another.”

In other words, the birth control mandate teaches that the traditional view of sexuality is wrong and the Hobby Lobby case did nothing to challenge that presumption.

3) “The left side of the political Left position toward religious belief and religious freedom has thoroughly shifted from toleration and accommodation to marginalization and exclusion.”

Traditionally, Americans believe in “live and let live,” Muñoz explained, and liberals used to respect the rights those who held religious beliefs that are different from their own, but “that view, I’m afraid, is no longer true … at least on the left of the Left.”

Now, Muñoz believes, liberals, or at least the less moderate liberals, treat those who hold traditional religious views like they would treat racists by attempting to remove them from participation in civil society. The most liberal liberals have held this view for a long time, Muñoz added, but what has changed is that they are now more aggressive in their efforts to drive the traditionalists from the public square.

“That space of civil society, that’s what the left of the Left is after. They want to cleanse religious believers from that space,” he said.

Providing examples, Muñoz mentioned pharmacists who oppose the use of abortifacients forced out of their jobs and religious adoption agencies being forced to treat same-sex households the same as married heterosexual couples. The next effort, Muñoz predicted, which “will happen very, very soon,” will be to remove college accreditation from colleges that hold to the traditional view.

People disagree on these issues, Muñoz said, because they have different conceptions of what liberty means.

During the Q&A period, Lipper compared today’s religious freedom arguments in areas related to sexual morality to arguments previously made in defense of racial segregation.

“These arguments were being made with regard to racial segregation,” he said, “the Religious Right movement … actually formed out of entities seeking a free exercise right to discriminate on the basis of race.”

In response to that accusation, Baylor noted that one his clients in a birth control mandate case, Geneva College, also fought the federal government on religious freedom grounds in the 1800s when it was being forced to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act, which was in opposition to its beliefs in racial equality and its opposition to slavery.

Contact: napp.nazworth@christianpost.com, @NappNazworth (Twitter)

1 Comment

Filed under Commentary


She was found guilty and sentenced to death by drowning. 
The unnamed daughter of Hans Hut, the outstanding Anabaptist leader in Germany died the martyrs death for her faith, by drowning, on Jan. 25, 1527 in the city of Bamburg.  Hut was a convert of Hans Denck, and on May 26, 1526, followed His Lord in believers baptism.  His daughter was one of his first converts who followed him in his new found faith.  Women among the Anabaptists held a superior position above other groups.  They referred to them as “sisters” and the ladies had a ministry of personal witnessing.   Their enemies accused them of practicing “free-love.”  There was no basis to the lie.  In fact, the high basis of morality of the Anabaptists was often mentioned by sincere historians of that era.  Hans daughter lived but a few months following her conversion to Christ.  Hans was accompanied by his family when he went to Bamberg in evangelistic work where he met with considerable success and then left them there when he departed for Augsburg.  While he was gone, his daughter was arrested.  She had participated in many Anabaptist meetings and had a firm grasp on the New Testament.  When arrested by State Church authorities (Lutheran) she gave clear answers as to her faith in Christ and refused to disavow her Lord.  She was found guilty and sentenced to death by drowning.  On this date, she was led to the river where she was placed in a bag with heavy weights and thrown to her death by drowning.  How blessed it must have been, as Stephen of old to have been greeted by our Lord Himself, who no doubt stepped off his throne to greet such a precious prize jewel, and no doubt gave her a name that her Lord has reserved just for her.  Revelation 2:17 “To him that overcometh will I give…a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”
Dr. Greg J. Dixon from: This Day in Baptist History Vol. IIII: Cummins, pp. 51-52.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church History

Morality and Religion

George Washington had insight that our leaders today lack. This makes him a brilliant president.

George Washington reveals more insight than any leader we have today.

He understood that there is no standard for morality that has ever been produced by mankind. The Old Testament testimony of the depravity of man in the statement, “they did what was right in their own eyes” testifies that man does not naturally seek the highest level but sinks to depravity. That our leaders would spend the time in the Word of God enough to comprehend the uplifting of the Word and encouragement to the highest level of living and morality. This disregard, even the rulings that remove the influence of God’s Word has moved this nation from a favoured position with God to the point of bring the Wrath of God in judgement. Pray and preach, not only from the pulpit but from the pew.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

1 Comment

Filed under Commentary

Huckabee and Morality


Huckabee Laments Lack of Morality In U.S. (Excerpt)

Baptist Press – Jun 24, 2009 – An absence of morality, not a lack of money, is responsible for many of the problems facing the United States, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the 2009 Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference June 22 in Louisville Ky.

“Wall Street did not melt down because it was a money problem,” Huckabee said. “It melted down because there was a moral problem, and it’s high time we address that what really is breaking this country is not a lack of money. It’s a lack of morality, and without righteousness and character our nation will perish.”

Huckabee compared the role of a politician to that of a pastor and said it’s important for such leaders not to amass power themselves, but to empower the people they are leading.

“We are creating an entire nation in which people are increasingly turning to a new god – the god of government – to do for us what we ought to be doing for ourselves, starting with raising our kids, taking care of our families and protecting and preserving life and the institutions of this great nation.” Huckabee said.

Huckabee used the story of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, in Judges 9 to warn about the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of too few. Abimelech was a power-hungry man who promised to simplify the lives of his followers. But instead, Abimelech killed 70 of his brothers.

Placing too much power in the hands of too few is a sure way to collapse an organization, Huckabee said, whether it is a church or a nation.

“It is not wise for pastors to believe that all of the power should rest solely in them,” Huckabee said. “The purpose of the pastor is not to retain power but to embolden and empower those to whom he is equipping, so that they will in fact do the work of the ministry.

“We today need to recognize that real leadership is not about bringing power to ourselves, but it is about bringing power to those that we are to serve.”


Filed under Commentary