╌>

Yesterday’s Heroes, Today’s Villains: ‘Woke’ Attack on Faith Principles of America’s Founding

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  5 years ago  •  51 comments

By:   Jerry Newcombe

Yesterday’s Heroes, Today’s Villains: ‘Woke’ Attack on Faith Principles of America’s Founding
The war against so much of America’s past is actually a war against the Judeo-Christian roots of what has been best about the nation. Yesterday’s admirable – if imperfect – heroes helped bring about so much good that was a part of the history of this land.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

America is a great and exceptional nation.  Founded by divine Providence as a nation of mostly Christians.  They recognized our creator and that He created us equal in His sight and that He is the source of the inalienable rights mentioned in our Declaration of Independence.  Our founding fathers were great and enlightened men in their time and the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and government they gave us is to this day the best on earth.  Our economic freedom, individual rights, and religious liberty are what makes us the best among nations and has attracted people of every nation out of many one on earth to live in this one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  Our great 1776 America set high standards for us to aspire to and reach.  We can recognize the mistakes learn and move on.  1619 is an I hate America and everything it stands for version of our history as it’s creators and defenders intended.  They hate what we are with every fiber of their being, see no good in us, our history, or our founders.  They think only of the mistakes and obsess over them picking at the scabs to make certain there is never healing or unity here.  This secular progressive version of our history is a hate filled screed against freedom, liberty, opportunity, and values.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The war against so much of America’s past is actually a war against the Judeo-Christian roots of what has been best about the nation. Yesterday’s admirable – if imperfect – heroes helped bring about so much good that was a part of the history of this land.

by Jerry Newcombe, D.Min.

Just in time for Presidents Day comes the announcement from the school board of San Francisco that they are renaming 44 of their public schools (about one-third of the total) in order to conform to today’s politically correct standards.

Among the names on the way out the door are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. The memory of the dead is being reconsidered.

The revolution always consumes its own. So even the school named after leftist Senator Diane Feinstein, who is still living, will have her name stripped off of it. Apparently, this is a punishment for something she had done before she even served in the U.S. Senate.

You would think by the left’s standards of right and wrong, only perfect people should have their statues and legacies remain intact. But during America’s cultural purge of 2020, even statues of Jesus—the only perfect person who ever lived—were desecrated.

Consider the case of the three former presidents who will now be unceremoniously dumped by the nation’s seventh largest school district—Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln.

Why did previous generations look up to our first president under the Constitution? Without the active participation and personal sacrifice of George Washington, we would not have America, at least not as founded.

Before Washington became our first president, he presided over the Constitutional Convention. Before that, he was the nation’s Commander-in-Chief, and helped lead an army of ill-equipped farmers and merchants to defeat the world’s largest army and navy at the time. Washington gave God the credit for the victory.

Washington was born into a society where for four generations, they owned slaves. By the time he died, Washington did the best he could to cut ties with that awful tradition. He freed the slaves he had inherited (at birth and from his marriage).

Like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry and James Madison, Washington helped pass the “Fairfax Resolves.” This 1774 measure was a move of the Virginia House of Burgesses. The goal was to cut off the slave trade to Virginia. It could have been a first major step to ending slavery in that colony. But it never went into effect because King George III stopped it.

This was before the successful, Christian crusade against slavery (first the slave trade, then slavery itself) in the entire British Empire that the long-time Member of Parliament William Wilbeforce led. It was his Christian faith that motivated him to do this, and it took him about half a century.

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, was also a slave-holder. I think it would be fair to say that Jefferson knew slavery was wrong and needed to be uprooted, but found it unrealistic to achieve in his lifetime. Nonetheless, the framework he helped create—wherein they stated that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with rights that government should not take away—would one day allow for the removal of slavery.

When it comes to the slavery issue, Abraham Lincoln is clearly a hero. He ultimately freed the slaves. But the elites want his name removed because at one point, he called for the execution of some violent Indian chiefs. (The authorities wanted 300 of the Indian leaders hanged. Lincoln whittled that down to 38.)

To today’s woke crowd, America is so hopelessly flawed that we need to purge the past to forge a progressive future.

I spoke recently with Bob Woodson, a veteran of the civil rights movement. He has organized “1776 Unites,” a group of historians to counter the misleading 1619 Project of the New York Times, which postulates that America’s real birth was the year slaves were first imported.

Woodson told me: “They’re really attacking anybody that has a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. It’s really a war against faith, that’s what it is.”

He added, “I would not be surprised if they went after Dr. [Martin Luther] King because of his Christian faith. You have got to understand this has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with using race as a bludgeon to try to destroy civic institutions in America.”

In short, notes Woodson: “They are trying to define America by its birth defect of slavery and Jim Crow, and our counter is that no individual or nation should be judged by the worst of what they used to be.”

In times past (and even in the present for tens of millions of Americans), Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln were (and are) great, if imperfect, heroes. They sacrificed much for the good of the country, and we enjoy much liberty because of their commitment. They are yesterday’s heroes, but today’s villains—at least among the Marxist ruling class. Hopefully, more Americans will see through this politically correct revisionism—and pass on to posterity an appreciation of our national heritage.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    5 years ago

By claiming that criticism of slavery and the founders is an attack on Christianity, one has to wonder if the evangelical Christians are not showing a consciousness of guilt. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 years ago
White Christians in the South didn’t just support slavery — the Southern church was the backbone of the Confederacy and its attempts to keep African Americans in bondage, according to Harry Stout, Jonathan Edwards Professor of American Religious History at Yale University.
“If you pull the church out of the whole equation, it’s highly likely that there never would have been a Civil War,” Stout told The Huffington Post. “Southern clergy had no doubt that slavery was not a sin.”

=

any southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.” Here are some common arguments made by Christians at the time:

• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).

• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24–27).

• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).

• Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.

• The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).

• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).

Charitable and Evangelistic Reasons

• Slavery removes people from a culture that “worshipped the devil, practiced witchcraft, and sorcery” and other evils.

• Slavery brings heathens to a Christian land where they can hear the gospel. Christian masters provide religious instruction for their slaves.

• Under slavery, people are treated with kindness, as many northern visitors can attest.

• It is in slaveholders’ own interest to treat their slaves well.

• Slaves are treated more benevolently than are workers in oppressive northern factories.

Social Reasons

• Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.

• Slavery is God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).

• Abolition would lead to slave uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Consider the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution.

=

By appealing to the Bible for authoritative defenses of slavery, the proslavery
advocates believed they were making a decisive statement, “The Bible supports slavery; 

God has sanctioned it; if you disagree with slavery you disagree with scripture and with
God.” This is why so many Southern Christians defended the institution. They wanted to be
on the side of the Bible and of God, and they believed that the proslavery advocates had
made it very clear which side God was on. The proslavery advocates believed they had won
the exegetical and hermeneutical battle for the Bible, and with it they believed they had
won the war over slavery in the hearts and minds of Christians

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    5 years ago

I have a question for MAGA. Did God support slavery? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    5 years ago

And 'Does ...?' applies too.   The Bible has not been updated to reflect a change of moral position by God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.3    5 years ago

You did not answer John's question (no surprise).

JR @2.1.1 ☞ Did God support slavery? 

There is no learning if one does not face facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.3    5 years ago

I asked you if God supported slavery. Christians in America used the Bible and Christianity as a defense for the practice of slavery. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    5 years ago
 He recognized it as a fallen man condition that existed in the world and gave instructions as to how to treat slaves when people kept them.

Why didnt God just tell them to end slavery immediately because He did not approve?  If God inspired the founding fathers to create the nation based on Judeo-Christian principles, why did they keep slavery? If they were inspired to create a Christian nation and it approved of slavery, what does that say about Christianity ? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    5 years ago
No, He did not.

Wrong.    'God' declares the slave to be the property of the master.   This sentiment is expressed many times in the Bible.

In the Bible, God weighs in on owning a human being as property yet does NOT condemn it as immoral . The fact that God speaks to slavery proves that He has rendered an opinion.   But instead of taking the opportunity to condemn slavery (and actually provide a little evidence that the Bible might be divine) God chose instead to make rules for proper enslavement.   A characteristic (albeit not unique) passage illustrating this is as follows:

Exodus 21:20-21    20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property .

It should not be necessary to explain the above.   But note the blue.   This passage is clearly talking about a master beating a slave (potentially to the point of death).   So this is serious stuff.   Now look at the ending part of the quote:

... since the slave is their property .

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
3  Split Personality    5 years ago
We can recognize the mistakes learn and move on.  

Most of us would like to believe that.

1619 is an I hate America and everything it stands for version of our history as it’s creators and defenders intended.  They hate what we are with every fiber of their being, see no good in us, our history, or our founders.  They think only of the mistakes and obsess over them picking at the scabs to make certain there is never healing or unity here.  This secular progressive version of our history is a hate filled screed against freedom, liberty, opportunity, and values.  

And that, is an obnoxious subjective screed with an irrelevant shot at secular progressives thrown in.

What part of 1619 is secular versus religious? religious vs progressive or conservative?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    5 years ago
So even the school named after leftist Senator Diane Feinstein, who is still living, will have her name stripped off of it.

Any article that refers to Diane Feinstein as a leftist probably isnt worth using as toilet paper. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    5 years ago

The move to erase the names of founders from the public square is dumb. I don't see that it is an attack on faith principles, though. I don't get that connection.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
8.1  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @8    5 years ago
The move to erase the names of founders from the public square is dumb.

Agreed, they were men and regardless of origin or religious beliefs were flawed. No shame in that.

I don't see that it is an attack on faith principles, though. I don't get that connection.

There isn't any. Some people can conflate weather and religion. There is no connection.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
9  charger 383    5 years ago

So, Now the only thing that matters about anybody in history is were they nice to blacks and politically correct ?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
9.1  Split Personality  replied to  charger 383 @9    5 years ago

No, Indians count too.

As a matter of fact, so do the Chinese and my all time favorites, the Irish.

Who knows what would have become of me if I were allowed to date the Italian Catholic girl of my dreams

or one of the Protestant twins near my aunts home. 

Our dating actions were highly regulated by our school mates prejudices as well as our parents in the 50's and 60's.

I could have been a contender if I wasn't a fucking Mick.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @9    5 years ago
So, Now the only thing that matters about anybody in history is were they nice to blacks

I can't believe someone actually said that in regards to US history. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
9.2.1  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2    5 years ago

I think it is a valid question.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2    5 years ago
I can't believe someone actually said that in regards to US history. 

These are the times we live in.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Expert
9.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2.3    5 years ago

The only anti-American assault is the attempt to destroy our democracy by Trump and his fascist cohorts.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Expert
9.2.6  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2.5    5 years ago

Totally false:  jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Expert
9.2.8  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2.7    5 years ago

Your comments don't contain a shred of truth.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2.10    5 years ago

Reality is not a simplistic, binary 'us' vs. 'them' where the 'us' side is always right and the 'them' side is always wrong.  

It takes little effort to see the logical flaws of finding everything Biden does to be wrong while heaping sycophantic praise onto Trump.   To ignore the profound dishonesty and narcissism of Trump yet turn around and find everything Biden does to be wrong screams confirmation bias.

 
 

Who is online



50 visitors