Monday Brief
Does Religion Matter in a Free Republic?
The Foundation
"[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." --John Adams
Inspiration
"[T]he current and future role of the Bible in U.S. society is an often-debated topic. A new release from Barna Group shows how this debate plays out regionally and takes a look at how 96 of the largest cities in the nation view the Bible. ... Individuals who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches are considered to be Bible-minded. ... Regionally, the South still qualifies as the most Bible-minded. ... This includes the media markets for Knoxville, TN (52% of the population are Bible-minded), Shreveport, LA (52%), Chattanooga, TN (52%), Birmingham, AL (50%), and Jackson, MS (50%). ... Easily the lowest Bible-minded scores came from Providence, RI (9%) and Albany, NY (10%). ... The New England area is home to most of the markets in the bottom 10 Bible-minded cities, including Burlington, VT (16%), Portland, ME (16%), Hartford, CT (16%), Boston, MA (16%), Buffalo, NY (18%) and New York, NY (18%). The remaining markets in the bottom 10 are primarily in the West and include San Francisco, CA (16%), Phoenix, AZ (17%), and Las Vegas, NV (18%). ... See all 96 cities here. ... Whether you live in a city ranked in the top half of Bible-minded cities or in the bottom half of Bible-minded cities, there are still tens of thousands of people to reach regarding both the message of the Scriptures and their importance. ... The key is to not merely 'preach to those insiders' but instead to equip and empower those who do believe with a strong and relevant message to take out into their communities, vocations and spheres of influence. They are the tipping point and can have great influence on the greater city." --The Barna Group
For the Record
"The Obama administration's announcement that it is going to put women in front-line ground combat positions is but the latest example of a deliberate and systematic wrecking operation it has conducted against the armed forces since 2009. ... Among the many, well-documented problems with assigning women to line infantry positions are three intractable ones: Most women lack the physical upper-body strength and stamina of most men. ... It is impossible as a practical matter to provide for separation of the sexes in frontline positions. That guarantees a loss of privacy and greatly increases the chances of pregnancies and harassment that: profoundly affects the personnel immediately involved; causes degrading of their units' warfighting capabilities; and traumatizes their families or, at a minimum, erodes the essential support for uniformed service that those loved ones provide. Men frequently will feel the need to protect women in dangerous situations, particularly if there is an emotional attachment between them. The effect in combat situations can be to complicate, if not to undermine entirely, the disciplined execution of orders that can prove to be the difference between victory and defeat. ... Unfortunately, thanks in part to the hollowing out of America's armed forces and other officially approved measures that are empowering and emboldening our enemies, the world is becoming a more dangerous place by the day. By replacing Ronald Reagan's historically validated philosophy of 'peace through American strength' with the unfounded hope for peace despite American weakness, President Obama is setting the stage for conflicts we will be unable to deter and, failing that, may be hard pressed to win." --Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Essential Liberty
"Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what [the Left] think our founding fathers had in mind when they penned that pesky Second Amendment, and according to these control freaks we don't need a tactical weapon with a high capacity magazine to hunt with. First off, dipsticks, the Second Amendment has nada to do with hunting. The founding fathers weren't worried about their right to put the bam to Bambi (although we should be because progressives hate hunting and would love nothing more than to bring that activity to a grinding halt). If you don't believe me, just corner one of these little darlings and ask them what they think about hunting. Secondly, who are they to tell us what we 'need' or don't need when it comes to anything? Typical of the Left, they think they know what's best for we the people. If you want to talk about 'needs,' Ms. Leftist, we don't need iPhones, Porsches, crazy straws, American Idol, beer, leaf blowers, and I don't need a gorgeous Italian wife. But that's America, folks. Stay out of our business." --columnist Doug Giles
Re: The Left
"I'm getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. ... As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical: 1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment. 2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as 'health care' within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally 3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons. But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That's normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children." --columnist Mike Adams
The Gipper
"Mightn't it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is no longer totally safe to rob and murder? ... Criminals are not dissuaded by soft words, soft judges or easy laws. They are dissuaded by fear and they are prevented from repeating their crimes by death or by incarceration. In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder; we are never going to eliminate crime; we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies -- with or without guns." --Ronald Reagan
Sign the Pledge!
Join the critical push for American Patriots across this great nation to pledge: "We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as 'endowed by our Creator,' enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Please take a moment and join the 36,000 of your countrymen who answered the call. Share it with your family, friends and colleagues via social media and email, as well.
Sign the 2A pledge!
Government
"Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers ... have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income. Government transfers now account for nearly 18% of all personal income in America -- up from 6% in 1960. According to the BEA, America's myriad social-welfare programs ... currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. ... Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does -- combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine. According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. ... Transfers funded by other people's money tend to foster a pernicious 'something for nothing' mentality -- especially when those transfers seem to be progressively and relentlessly growing, year by year. This 'taker' mentality can only weaken civil society -- even as it places ever-heavier burdens on taxpayers. Generosity is a virtue.... But being generous with other people's money is not the same thing." --American Enterprise Institute's Nicholas Eberstadt
Opinion in Brief
"What Obama spends ... the most important part [of his inaugural speech] doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own. It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them. If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of their dreams. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things. ... Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended." --columnist Keith Koffler
Faith and Family
"A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones. By 'social conservatism,' I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, 'In God We Trust' and 'E Pluribus Unum.' It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One never hears the term 'fiscal liberals.' Why not? Because those who consider themselves liberals are liberal across the board -- fiscally and socially. The left understands that values are a package. Apparently, many conservatives -- libertarians, for example -- do not. They think that we can sustain liberty while ignoring God and religion and ignoring American nationalism and exceptionalism. It is true that small government and liberty are at the heart of the American experiment. But they are dependent on two other values: a God-based religious vigor in the society and the melting pot ideal. Or, to put it another way, small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager
Reader Comments
"As usual, in his essay 'I, Barack Hussein Obama...', Mark Alexander displays perfectly good sense and a well-grounded understanding of the provisions of the Constitution. This president doesn't seem to possess the intellectual capacity to understand either the actual provisions of the Constitution or its background. To me, that is not surprising since his education never really focused on seeing what makes this country so attractive. His whole concern seems to be to 'bring it down a notch or two.' His 'work' background is laughable. He has spent his 'adult life' questioning the accomplishments of others and/or fomenting unhappiness. Thank you, Mark, for your ability to 'translate' this president's hollow words." --Roger in Poulsbo, Washington
"Keeping the president from overstepping the bounds of the Constitution depends on a healthy opposition and we do not have one. The GOP is a joke and a bad one at that. They sound like accountants and bankers and have forgotten how to talk to the folks who vote. They bow down to Reagan but have forgotten how he was able to win and how to do what he did." --Bill in Leawood, Kansas
"When I raised my right hand many years ago I promised to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an absolute and binding document and no president or Congress has ever felt that it should be changed to suit the whims of any who might achieve high office. Thousands of Americans have died to keep this Constitution intact and unalterable. It must be so forever if we are to continue to be the United States of America." --John in Ledyard, Connecticut
"You spoke of Barack Obama's 'poker tells' of UH and fumbling his words. There are so many more, but my other favorite is 'Let me be clear...' which is most often followed by a meaningless promise to the great masses on the Left, or a bellicose challenge to his opponents." --Lane in San Antonio, Texas
"Thank you for picking up on the fact that there IS a difference between 'assault' weapons and defensive weapons in Friday's Digest. I have been beating this drum for a LONG time. I am glad someone who has a greater audience finally picked it up! Thank you!!" --bmwsid in New York
"When James Madison presented the Second Amendment to the Delegates, he said that his purpose was 'to keep the government in fear of an armed and aroused populace.' And that, friends and neighbors, is what the Democrats are afraid of. It's not about anything else." --Rifleman in Nawth Jawja
"Rather than a reduction in firearm capacities, how about a reduction in the number of low-information freeloaders that vote for wealthy, self-centered, arrogant elitists like Dianne Feinstein." --William in Plano, Texas
The Last Word
Editor's Note: The following is satire.
"Breaking news: Obama's remarks, widely celebrated for their eloquence and good sense, were in fact crafted by his speechwriters in direct response to a draft of a planned Romney inaugural address that they somehow got hold of. An excerpt of Romney's address [follows]: 'We have learned from the last four years that it is a mistake to rely on each other and to work together. It is my firm belief that one man, by himself, can train the nation's math and science teachers -- and probably, if he really tries, the nation's English teachers as well. One man, acting alone, can build all the labs and networks and roads we need. When he is not training those teachers. Yeah, I'm talking about the same guy. What we must resolve never to do is work alongside one another. Also, children born in the bleakest poverty must learn to accept their fate. The way to reform entitlements is to stop taking care of the generation that built this country. We've just got to go cold turkey on that. And we must commit ourselves to perpetual war...' Man, this nation really dodged a bullet." --National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
173 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Women in Combat is another kick in the teeth for America. Republicans are the ones perpetrating a "war on women"? Seems the Democrats want to make war mandatory for women!
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM
The "Republicans" didn't do anything to stop it, either . . .
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:22 PM
To JTC, you would love to ignore me, well I'm back. If woman serving on the front lines is an issue, surprise, they have been doing it for decades. A bigger surprise is the Israelis do it for they know woman make good soldiers. A larger surprise is I shot a combatant in Nam. She was a female, another who died was a female sniper. the Soviets during WW2 used female snipers. R Limbaugh comment, "We should have a battalion of woman who all get there periods at the same time then send them into combat. A good speech from a woman hater who only think woman are good for sex. I fought against female combatants, in most cases I would rather play tag with a man in combat then a woman. If you're saying all woman shouldn't be in combat, the same goes for the men.
Brian in Virginia
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Another thing about women in combat: I heard that Muslims will NOT surrender to a woman. The Israeli Defense Force ran into this situation and it caused more casualties on both sides as Muslim men preferred fighting to the death rather than surrendering to a women. Can anyone confirm this?
Ernest Wilson in Maryland
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Why is it so difficult for the Left to see that religion is the magor influence in sustaining a moral society? If there are certain behaviors that everybody can agree are desirable like the 10 Commandments, isn't it perfectly obvious to all that only religion consistently stresses these good things.
By religion I don't mean just Christianity but all the magor religious groups. The Durant's in their History of Civilization recognized this simple truth and they were by no means conservatives. They saw however the danger in excluding religion from public life thereby creating only one view, the secular one with it's relative view of acceptable behavior, as the predominant view. As we have moved from a religous society to a secular one, our social problems have increased. Governments limited tools to deal with this having been largely ineffective, our moral base has certainly declined and with it the shame that once helped bolster civilization.
Barack Obama in Washington, D.C.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Religion matters! I am a Sunni Muslim and as such have very little allegiance to Shiite doctrine. That being said, watch what I DO and not what I SAY to reveal how I feel about Christianity (actually all you have to do is look at my record in ILLinois - sponsored the bill to allow abortions AFTER a child has left the womb - one of my finest efforts ever).
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Then render onto Ceaser what's Ceasers. the point I'm making is easy. We have sheriffs who say, (I will not enforce the law) Fine, then I won't obey speed limits through schools and hospital zones. We Have Texas who want to give tax breaks to those who break the law (which the supreme court is constitutional.) All of you say, WE ARE CHRISTIANS. Yet the story of the tower of Babel escapes most of you. , the story of the flood escapes all of you. What we have are so called Christians saying (I will obey what I want to obey, I will do what I will do. this leads not to personal freedom but to anarchy. What we have is we want no government or smaller government yet we will decide as i n Gv Brewer case, whop is worthy of living and who is worthy of dying. this is a death panel of one, a Tea party Gv has made those decisions. We have a problem and it's not a messaging problem.
Brian in Virginia
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Wow, check your blood pressure RK. Never seen you spout like that. (Who punched his button, anyway?)
You missed the rest of the first quote. Let me provide the whole quote: "Render therefor unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's." Yes, we should render unto "Ceasar" such things as income tax and obeying traffic laws, We should render unto God such things as our refusal to support laws that violate our faith such as providing "reproductive services" (abortion) to employees or that forces us to give up our right to self-defense.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M. 88012
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 2:49 PM
You're[partially correct. I become upset when I see sheriffs saying I will not support the Law, Texas Ric Perry say I will not support the law. What we have is we will do whatever we want. I was making a point, a slipperly slope. we do what we believe is correct and I have done my protests in the past, where does it stop? the people voted down a communistic bill in Mich and the Tea party puts it right back in. This is the will of the people, not the will of a few.
Mike in San Diego
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:17 PM
R.K.: You can't possibly be this dense. An unconstitutional law is no law. As long as the most people vote for it, then it's good to go? Really? That's right, we live in a democracy, not a republic. So, just disregard Federal law regarding immigration, and allow millions of new Democrats to illegally come aboard, then let them vote? And if they vote unanimously to banish R.K. Sprau to the moon? Is that acceptable? It's not in my book, but what do I know? I just follow the constitutionality of things. Hopefully, a twisted government doesn't take over with polar opposite views of your own, and without a Constitution to protect you....good luck with that. I'd say what you reap you sow, but you'll just end up throwing out some other Old Testament instance, and in some obscure fashion, tie it to Christianity utilizing your very limited knowledge of the Bible.
"I become upset when I see sheriffs saying I will not support the Law..."
Funny how you didn't mention how "un-upset" you are at your Golden Boy in the White house disregarding and not supporting more and more laws every single day. Nevermind. Typical liberal hypocrite.
Oh yeah, don't forget to read the 10th amendment contained within the document you must believe doesn't exist. There you will find Ric Perry's position clarified.
Mike in San Diego
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Let's just ban "assault" weapons. As defined by what today? What will be considered an "assault" weapon next year? 10 years? Slippery slope, indeed. I doubt you thought any of that through, however, as you seem more content trying to drag the rest of the camel into the tent.
Mike in San Diego
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM
"Fine, then I won't obey the speed limits through schools and hospital zones."
You go, Tiger!
And you will most assuredly lose the "privilege" to operate a motor vehicle.
For a lesson on Rights as opposed to Privileges, please read Constitution...PLEASE!!!!
Dennodog in Jersey City NJ
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 1:23 AM
I don't hear any complaints from the left when elected officials refuse to enforce IMMIGRATION laws and come right out and "proudly" say it. You can't have it both ways......All you supporters of these "sanctuary" locations have nothing to say about other groups selectively enforcing and obeying government orders that they deem unlawful.
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Ernest, there is no moral requirement for religiosity or a belief in supernatural myths. The bible and koran are littered with immorality and American Christians are generally good folks IN SPITE OF their holy book. They are moral because they reject the biblical teachings concerning the beating of slaves, the murder of homosexuals, the execution of disobedient children, the forcing of a woman to marry her rapist. The Ten Commandments are a pathetic choice for a top ten list of laws. Is it really more important to worship a god and keep holy a sabbath than to not rape or keep slaves? Any person who thinks so has skewed morality and any god that requires such is an egomaniacal thug. Likewise, there are many good American Muslims. They are the ones who reject jihad and do not follow their holy book literally. Again, they are moral IN SPITE OF their holy book. Our problems have not increased BECAUSE of our inevitable move to secularism. The problems are, partially, due to the voluntary usurpation of personal responsibility and the role of family, by government programs. I do not advocate forcibly eliminating the role of religion and I agree with the Constitutional protection of religious liberty. But I reject your unsubstantiated premise that religion is required for morality.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:26 PM
having a M.A. in Historical Theology (History). I have to agree with the above. the exception I take is small government is forcing there will on me. In Mich the people voted down Gv Snyder bill to allow towns, cities, counties to be taken over by the state and ran by big business. He [passed the law the next day and dais, you can't vote it out. tea party communism wrapped up in a flag? tell me, which is worse, the above comments or what we do, the minority says, "Screw the will of the people as in Mich" Who made you God over me?
Mike in San Diego
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Just when I thought there was no hope for you, R.K., you have gone and proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wow.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 2:53 AM
Easy done. Prove me wrong.
Mike in San Diego
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 5:05 PM
Because left to our own devices, we are doing such a fantastic job! Hilarious. I love the arbitrary tie of the 10 commandments and Christianity. So, what you're saying is that the 2, count them, 2 commandments Jesus told us to follow wouldn't correct EVERYTHING in society? We can't even get those right, Marc. Let me know once you figure out the 2 to which I'm referring, and then come back and support the whole myth(was a real person), egomaniacal(seriously?)/we don't need to follow your "pathetic" directions(see current society) position.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM
Mt 22:36
MNIce in Minnesota
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:24 PM
The left does NOT agree that the 10 Commandments represent desirable behavior. Consider how the typical leftist responds to each one (Deuteronomy listing): "You shall have no other gods before Me." The Left: what makes the god of the Bible better than any other? Why can't I define for myself who God is? Besides, there are no absolute truths! "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain." The Left: Let's talk about how to shut up those Gd* Tea Party idiots! "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you." The Left: Those people who cling bitterly to their guns and religion - who believe the Bible and go to church - they're so old-fashioned, so anti-science. "Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you." The Left: What for? They messed me up so bad, I'm still going to the therapist twice a week. "You shall not murder." The Left: Don't you dare tell me what to do with my body! I'll have an abortion if I want to! "You shall not commit adultery." The Left: Don't you dare tell me what I can't do with my body! Stay out of my bedroom! "You shall not steal." The Left: The rich got what they have dishonestly, so we have to make them pay their fair share - take it away and give it to the poor (so they'll vote for us). "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." The Left: We'll do whatever it takes to make sure Progressives win elections, for our intentions are so noble that any means are justified. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s." The Left: Why can't I carry on with the old ****'s hot chick wife? We're consenting adults. As for the other stuff, look, we all know he got it off the backs of the working man - it's time to make him pay his fair share.
This is why we don't get anywhere with the Left. Their moral standards, if you can call them that, are completely opposite ours in many cases. Not all Democrats think this way, but the majority of those in control of that faction do. They tend to be quite narrow-minded in their hedonism, and do not understand why anyone would object to their behavior.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:52 PM
IF YOU want to quote the O.T. then follow all of it. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MORNING AFTER PILL.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Nu 5:11 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act;
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:55 PM
14 if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; 17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, "If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM
20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you," 21 --let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman--"Yahweh make you an execration and an oath among your people, when Yaheh makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; 22 now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!" And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen." 23 Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before Yahweh and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. 29 This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before Yaheh, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. 31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.
Brian in Virginia
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM
This was written to the Jews for the Jews.
Further, the world is no longer "under the law" but under grace. Read John 8.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M. 88012
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM
I love the point. If this is the case why quote the O.T., why have it at all?As for Jews, What I taught my students is it is a 2 edged sword. You can't have it both ways. Which way is it going to be? We pick and choose, or ditch the O.T. as non-essential. I;m not being picky, I'm only asking a question any theology student has been asked. I made a point, the answer can be found in yourself.
Virtue in Idaho
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:00 PM
Nice RK use a favorable translation of the Bible so that it helps you to try to make a point. Have you heard the phrase "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth". Your diatribes are an excellent example. There was nothing in your own copied and pasted verses that the priest did that caused the baby to be aborted (I mean dust off of the ground does not act like a day after pill) but it left the judgement up to God whether she would be cursed or not as ultimately all judgements are Gods anyways, in this case it is helping to ammend the wrongs done to others ie the husband and giving the wife an oppurtunity to repent. Thats even if your own chosen translation has any credence. Exactly what would the result of that cursing be, in the KJV it is clear that she would be marked and shunned in society. When someone acts in a way that degrades and harms their society that is a typical "curse". The Jews came out of a long period of apostasy and necessity required that they become a people free of the immorality and aquainted with the only real and living God. If you read with these points in mind the laws given to the Jews will make more sense to you. I am sure you must also realize that the strict mosaic laws were a direct result of the Israelites not being willing to abide in a higher law (in other words the law introduced by Christ) and that that Mosaic law was clearly done away with when Christ made his great and final sacrifice. So chastizing Christians today for not living the law of Moses when they have been told it has been done away again shows that you have a basic lack of understanding of the Bible. Ultimately what you really are saying in all of your quazi religious rants is that you really do not agree with what God has done, and in that you are not alone all others are at odds with God as well for one reason or another which is why a Christian believes that when he has done wrong and put himself at odds with the laws of happiness he needs to change his ways . The remarkable thing is that God allows you complete liberty and all others to do exactly as you please but invites those who love him to "keep his commandments" and in doing so like the ancient Jews they become acquainted with htheir Father in Heaven.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 2:57 AM
I prefer Aramaic,DR, or NIV. It still proved my point. We want to be a christian nation yet we will not agree on anything. this is the point I knew if I said what I said someone would make the point for me. As you said a favorite translation of the Bible so you know translations will say anything you want it to say.
Jack in Aledo, TEXAS
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM
This explains why yankees act the way they do!!
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Hahahahahaha Good one, Jack.
Patriot1775 in MD
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Not sure I know what you mean by that comment Jack.
CAB in Sandy, Utah
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM
I don't know how this survey of Bible oriented folks was conducted, but I find it very difficult to believe that Salt Lake City and other cities in Utah should not be much higher on this list.
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Most of the folks in Utah have a "different" bible, CAB.
Virtue in Idaho
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 3:36 PM
JTC - Do you really believe that Latter Day Saints use a different Bible? Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints use the King James version of the Bible. Just thought you should know so as to help you be more aware next time it comes up.
Virtue in Idaho
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:03 PM
If it is any consolation another "recent survey" indicated that the Latter Day Saint has the best scriptural knowledge of biblical events. So I guess it has alot to do with what survey you read, but no suprise there.
Bll DeFelice in McKeesport
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Some read the bible daily.It gives them solis. I read the journals of The Patriot Post U.S..I get mu solis from them.
Rifleman in Nawth Jawja
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:06 PM
It gives them solace?
Geraldine E. Marsh in Elkhart, In.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM
The Bible does matter it Basic-Instructions-Before- Leaving-Earth.It instructons how to live. Praise God for the Bible.
Hugh in Arkansas
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM
The liberals support abortion on demand, which probably kills thousands of children in their mother's wombs each year, but use the act of one deranged individual, WHO DID NOT USE AN ASSAULT RIFLE, who killed 20 children and 6 adults with HANDGUNS, who could not defend themselves because they were in a "GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONE, which meant no one in the school could have a legally carried concealed firearm to defend the children or themselves with, because of a law Senator Feinstein voted to pass, a woman who possesses a concealed-carry permit and carries her own concealed weapon FOR HER PROTECTION, wants to REMOVE all Americans' rights granted in the 2nd Amendment to the CONSTITUTION, because "SHE KNOWS WHAT'S BEST FOR AMERICA"? THE BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR OUR NATION IN 2014 IS VOTE "NO INCUMBENTS".
Rifleman in Nawth Jawja
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Typically, 90% of Senators are re-elected.
We, the People, continue to inject ourselves with the same poison.
We have allowed our "representatives" to create a political and economic dependency and we're becoming accustomed to that dependency.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Rifleman,
If you have not figured it out by now, you get to vote to maintain the illusion, but the "election" is decided ahead of time. This last "election" was "stolen", if you want to categorize it that way.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:31 PM
I want to comment to you. YOU believe in a trilateral commission, one world government. While I do not espouse to your views, I did check you out. Bush used one world government, Reagan set it up, it has been used over since to include Bush's son. what I find interesting is they are all skull and crossbones. to get in, you must be a political influential family, or a athletic. You must steel something of value so you can hold it over there head not to spill there secrets, you must be sexually active. there stated goal is to make a 1 world government via politics and captains of industry. they are all sworn to help each other to do this by any means necessary. I am not a conspiracy nit yet it it what it is.
Bob G in Georgia
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM
You are absoulutely correct. Do as I say not as I do. They are elietist's, they are better than the rest of us little people. Vote them out.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM
"Vote them out"?
You can think that it is possible, but you are sadly mistaken!
Our "elections" have been controlled for years now and . . . well, it will all be over soon ;-)
Henry in Illinois
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:34 PM
You are absolutely right,Git R Dunn and if anyone thinks that the last " election " was legitimate is an idiot . This " community organizer " with his dismal record could not run for a dog catcher and be electedin a LEGITIMATE election but with the democrats' lies and fraud , we all know what has happened , and of course there is not ONE republican in Washington that has enough guts to say that , little johnny in particular .
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:34 PM
I said and was chastised for it, learn the enemy, learn his moves. I was told, "NO WE DON'T NEED TO." There strong suit is they studied you, they played chess while we were playing checkers. Since we only talk to yourselves, there weakess and turned into there strong suit and we turned week. Comments such as Legitimate rape, self deportation, Let everyone be foreclosed on and rent back your own home from the Rich (Romney Nv), do you think the precception of a war against woman and the middle class might be part of the problem?
Connie Guest in Hudson CO
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM
I'm ashamed of CO, both politically and religiously. My husband and I read the Bible every day. We've gone through the Bible in a year for at least 15 years and will continue until death. The way things are going in America right now, the Lord is our ONLY hope. I'm glad He's in control!
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM
" . . . the Lord is our ONLY hope. I'm glad He's in control!"
Amen, Connie!!!
Ray in NC
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM
No matter what your belief. The Christian religion is the moral glue that has helped America to become the great nation that we are today.
Vondell HASS in Wichita
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Yes, we have the promise: My Word shall not return void" and it is still true today.
Richard B. in Jamestown, TN
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM
I was raised in the country and daily saw the wonders of God's creation around me. Standing on a street corner there are few, if any, wonders to see that are not man made. Thus I would expect city dwellers to have less belief in God.
desert in az
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM
I can't believe Las Vegas is one per cent higher than Phoenix! Explains a lot of the garbage in Phoenix I am thinking!
desert in az
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Put obozo and obiden on the front line instead of women....err...maybe the same thing tho?
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM
You start with the title questioning if religion matters. Then you present an article that cites stats about cities that are more "biblically-minded" and less so. The article then discusses "the key" and talks about how to reach out to folks. What "key"? Can I assume that the article is truly objective and that the key to allowing people to reach logical conclusions is to educate them about facts, logic, reason, and science, then let them draw their own conclusions about the validity of religion? Or, is the article, that you chose to print in TPP, simply a Christian rallying cry to spread the word of the bible? And, if that be the case, does that really belong in a forum on American liberty? Further, the article (at least what you published) does not draw any conclusions. How about correlations between "biblically-minded" cities and crime rates? How about proportions of prison inmates who are, say, Christian versus, say, atheists, and compare those to their relative proportions in those cities and in the US? I suspect (I know) those stats and they don't look so good for those trying to draw actual logical conclusions about "biblically-minded" cities. Perhaps TPP should promote education rather than religious (Christian-only, of course) proselytizing. Perhaps TPP should give some actual thought to the mythology they promote, to the detriment of their message on patriotism, rather than continuously, blindly correlate Bronze Age mythology to morality and American liberty.
Jay G. in Tulsa, OK
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM
I'm not a Christian... Probably fall in the atheist camp since I don't believe in the existance of any gods or supreme beings. However, I do understand America's deeply intertwined relationship with religious belief. I have no problem with it as long as the government isn't trying to force me to believe in a specific religion. I am a huge advocate of the separation of church and state, which I find overwhelming support in the writings of our forefathers.
But I also consider myself a patriot, firm supporter of the second amendment, and conservative leaning. I'm also a law enforcement officer.
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Jay, agreed 100%. The separation of church and state is absolutely essential for religious liberty. A government that mixes the two will inevitably necessarily impose one set of beliefs on all, thus compromising religious liberty. I'm continue to be astonished by the editors and many readers of TPP who are clearly intelligent and who advocate the words proscribed in our Constitution, but then turn a blind eye to those very words to advocate that our government conflate religion and law. It doesn't work in Iran, it's the reason our founders fled Europe, and it can't work here.
RedLeg in M'Boro
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Marc you are confused. It does not seem that anyone can show you how our founding fathers could be both Christian and writers of the Constitution. Our founding fathers understood the orginal meaning of tyrant, and understood absolute power corrupts absolutely. Only through understanding Christian piety, restrain, and humility can one live as a citizen, worker, or leader (public or private). That concept is the history of this nation. The simple fact that Christians that do not want Government forced abortion coverge as part of their healthcare coverage that is a violation of separation of church and state. Obama and the narrow minded will get their way, because not enough people will express their outrage.
The double standard of we can have muslim prayer in schools, but not the other faiths or religions of citizens. If you do not believe me just drive to Murfreesboro, TN. My daughter says grace before eating, but could not. A muslim kid could pray. Same teacher prevented and allowed. The principal just stammered when I confronted him. Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom FROM Religion. Everyone gets a choice, No one should tell you that you have be a member of this faith or religion or non-member and none other. I will not tell you that. Your posts seem to tell us that we have to be non-believers in order to meet your beliefs.
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM
RedLeg, you state "Your posts seem to tell us that we have to be non-believers in order to meet your beliefs." I claim no such thing. I am a firm believer in separation of church and state. I do not think Christians should have to subsidize abortion. I think that both Muslims and Christians should be allowed to pray in schools, but I vehemently oppose officially-led prayer in school. Separation of church and state includes BOTH freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Its not complicated. When a government official leads a group prayer, or denies an individual to non-disruptively pray, they are violating the separation. The government must not have the power to pick the winners and losers regarding religion. The only way to achieve that objective is for the government to remain rigorously religion-neutral and god-neutral.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM
My endorsement means little on this post yet you made the most rational comment yet.
Chant 4 Change in Hare Krishna Village, USA
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 2:26 AM
"Only through understanding Christian piety, restrain, and humility can one live as a citizen, worker, or leader (public or private). "
Christianity isn't the only religion that teaches piety restraint and humility.
Redleg in M'Boro
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM
Yes the founfing fathers did conflate religion and politics. Especially when they said, "Endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights...". ; the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." and finally "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.". I know it is difficult to bear knowledge of such words when you want to believe other wise. Yes, conflate religion (Judeo-Christian beliefs) and politics the founding fathers accomplished.
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM
RedLeg, yes, those words do appear in the Declaration and that's fine, though regrettable. However, note that even that document does not refer to Jesus, Christianity, or Judeo-Christian principles, but simply to a creator. That is consistent with most of the Founding Father's deism (not Christianity), though, undeniably, some were Christian. But, most importantly, when crafting the words of the supreme law of the land, the document that actually establishes our basis of government, they chose to make only two references to religion. One is the first sentence of the first amendment, to which we often refer. The other is Article VI, section 3 "... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's it Redleg. No reference to god, Jesus, Christianity, Judeo-Christian principles, or the like. Did they just forget? Did they feel it necessary to spell out in detail how electors are to be chose, but then decided to just stay silent and assume that posterity would just know our fundamental founding principles? We know the answers. They debated the issue rigorously and concluded that in order to preserve liberty the government must represent all Americans equally and not advocate one set of religious beliefs over another. Anyone who believes that our mutual government should advocate one set of religious beliefs or any other, does not respect our Constitution.
MNIce in Minnesota
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:06 AM
"Most of the Founders were deists" is a popular modern myth. Most were Christians, but of differing denominations. Deists believe that God made the world, then left it alone and has little or nothing to do with it. By contrast, most of the Founders agreed with Benjamin Franklin when he said, "The longer I live, the more I am convinced that God intervenes in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall without His notice, can an empire rise without His aid? Without the Lord, we shall fare no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little, local interests. We shall become a reproach to future ages."
Many were well-acquainted with the persecution of dissenting denominations by state-dominated denominations in Europe, and sought to prevent that evil here. Though they often disagreed on theology, they recognized and agreed that such matters were too important to let government get involved. That is why the Constitution does not speak of separating Church and State, but prohibits Congress from either establishing a particular religion or restricting the free exercise of any.
Yet today, almost all state governments, and Congress as well, actively promote the religious dogma of evolutionary origins, as opposed to teaching it as a still-controversial interpretation of historical data. This dogma is at the heart of atheism, and its implications have played a huge role in the moral devastation of our times. Another study by the Barna Group showed that the teaching of evolution as "fact" in the government schools is directly responsible for many children leaving the church upon graduation. And yet, evolution as a scientific theory has numerous serious problems, which few in the scientific community dare to address because of the retaliation they will receive, in particular from government funding agencies.
So, Marc, if you are to be consistent, you should also oppose the teaching of evolution as fact, and insist that if it is taught, it is taught as a hypothesis based on the pre-supposition that all things happen by naturalistic means (another way of saying, "There is no God, or if there is one, He doesn't do much of relevance or significance."). You should also oppose the knee-jerk characterization of competing interpretations (e. g., creation science) as "anti-science," but insist that students be permitted to evaluate different claims about the world's origin based on a fair presentation of the arguments and data.
mark in massachusetts
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Marc, Mark Alexander founded the Patriot Post and ,as is his 1st Amendment right,may speak his mind.You have rights too.You can read his message or ignore it.I would think by now,though,that you are intelligent enough to have figured out that most of the contributors and readers are believers in an Almighty God and choose to follow their beliefs.If you are so put off by this site why not try the Huffington Post or Dan Savage? Why do you continue to rail against the Post for having their point of view.You believe that God doesn't exist.I've never met God or an atheist.Does that mean atheists don't exist? Theres the door,pal.Don't let it hit you on the way out.
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 5:08 PM
mark, I am well aware of Mark Alexander's First Amendment rights. That does not immunize the articles he chooses to publish from any scrutiny. The thin-skinned folks who read TPP seem quite averse to anyone who may dissent from the rank and file. That is unfortunate as it may be possible that there are other folks who may have some different perspectives that may merit consideration. I do appreciate that Mr. Alexander does not delete or censor my comments, contrary to the aversion of some here to intelligent debate. I will continue to voice my opinion as I see appropriate. If you do not like it, you can try the Huffington Post or Dan Savage - there's the door pal...
mark in massachusetts
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM
I think you are the one who is a little thin-skinned.Why not just stand outside the Vatican with a picture of Darwin if it floats your boat? Are you a former altar boy? You sound very angry toward Catholicism.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:40 PM
earlier I commented on being in a bubble, talking to yourselves. this is the problem. legitimate rape, woman need to be paid less, woman need to be subservient, all misaligned Biblical/Historical principles. the idea of go away fro we don't like what you have to say is the wrong precept. This mindset will force yet another lost election. I know, the Tea Party in the Senate in Mich wants to have an Ayn rand Isle. Fine, go communist, go to objectivism. to buy in will cost 300,000.00 non refundable and you have to prove you are one of them by passing an board. Do any of you have just the by in fee for a utopia which will not cater to the hard working middle class that makes such money and greed possible?
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:41 PM
". . . does that really belong in a forum on American liberty?"
American liberty only exists because we were founded as and have been a Christian Republic. And, BTW, "seperation of Church and state" is a myth created by the left.
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:42 PM
"Myth isn't the right word -fallacy, maybe.
Rod in USA
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Actually, as you note there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The government just cannot forbid any particular religion or require any particular religion. This is why the government is so terribly wrong with respect to forcing religious organizations to fund abortion against their wishes. In that matter, the correct thing would be for govmint to "butt out". And if a woman wants funded abortions, she can choose to work elsewhere.
It's called "freedom", not that libtards will ever get it.
JtC in TX
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM
Well put, Rod.
Marc in Atlanta
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Rod, I agree with you. JtC, "Separation of church and state" is not a myth or other concoction of the left. They are the words of perhaps our greatest founding father, Thomas Jefferson. As typical of Jefferson, he brilliantly elucidated the founding principle by which religious liberty must be secured - that is by government not choosing the winners and losers, but by remaining religiously-neutral. He was a smart man, and that continues to be a smart idea.
MNIce in Minnesota
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:17 AM
The problem is that the phrase is taken out of context and used by some to try to prohibit anyone in government from expressing his personal religion. One does not give up his First Amendment rights by accepting a government position.
Thomas Jefferson wrote of the "wall of separation between church and state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Congregation, assuring them that the government could not legally interfere with their practice of religion!
That being said, a government official does have the obligation, when he expresses a religious opinion, to make it clear that it is his personal belief and not an officially required teaching if that is not obvious from his context. This is where the government schools and science funding agencies so often fail - they take the official line that only the atheist dogma of origins is acceptable teaching in science.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM
JTC, what religion do you propose? What religious war would you care to have? I know, Mormonism, maybe some cult.
Eileen in Niagara Falls
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM
This was based on on study done by the The Barna Group. Maybe you look into it and get some of the answers to your questions. Also it does belong in a forum for American liberty. The Constitution is based on biblical teachings. The Constitution is what keeps this nation free but once you take God out of the equation the country is going to hell and the people will follow like sheep to slaughter. TPP didn't specify any religion but people do need to know there are better ways to live and the good news the Bible teaches. There are many religions out in society other then Christians who read the Bible. Also there are people out there in America who don't go to church but believe in God and His promises and read the Bible every day. God is not a mythological being He is real and He keeps his promises. He also gave us the freedom of choice to believe or not to believe. Your choice.
Richard W in MO
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM
The problem is not that Barack Obama does not understand the Constitution. He understands. He just doesn't care.
Barack Obama in Washington, D.C.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 2:06 PM
Oh, I care you ignoramus! And I am determined to trample your Constitution underfoot such that it is not recognizable by 2016. You Colonialist scum will be subjugated by the time I am through with you and America will be reshaped into a Muslim utopia.
Kevin in Arkansas
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM
"Muslim utopia"
Hell, just threaten us with a Chicago utopia and that wold be bad enough.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM
How I love the names, it shows education and IQ. On FOX news, he a weird Pentecostal, pick on his former minister. Well that worked so well he went from being a pentecostal (Christian) to a Muslim for this is what FOX News said. Now which is he?
MNIce in Minnesota
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:29 AM
I consider it prudent to be agnostic concerning Mr. Obama's religion. He has publicly claimed to be Christian, but a good share of what he espouses is contrary to Scripture.
Nevertheless, we should not revile him by distorting his name or making unprovable accusations. He has enough public bad stuff in his history for a lengthy and well-justified admonition; we don't have to speculate on allegations based on thin circumstantial evidence (e.g ., the often-voiced suspicion that he is a radical Muslim traitor intent on turning North America into a caliphate). God condemns reviling because it is an expression of personal hatred and lack of forgiveness, and does nothing to bring a sinner to repentance.