David Barton

• In all your ways acknowledge Him. PROVERBS 3:6
• As they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind to do those things which are not proper. ROMANS 1:28
• Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord. PSALM 33:12
• I . . . recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the Source from which they flow.

The Ten Commandments begin with the pronouncement, “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2). While Christians attach this definitive proclamation as the prologue to the Ten Commandments, Jews consider that forceful declaration to be the First Commandment. 103 They properly believe that acknowledging God is the highest priority – that the commands listed after that affirmation have force only because God is recognized for Who He is and is acknowledged as the Authority behind those commands. Therefore, acknowledging and honoring God is a priority in His Top Ten.

Proverbs 3:5-6 reemphasizes that pivotal message, reminding us that in all our ways (in public as well as in private) we are to acknowledge Him; and Psalm 79:6 and Jeremiah 10:25 call for God’s wrath upon all nations which do not call upon His name, while Matthew 10:32 and Luke 12:8 affirm the blessings of acknowledging Him in public. Numerous other verses could be cited, but the Biblical message is clear: it is essential to acknowledge and honor God publicly. The warranty of 1 Samuel 2:30 that “Those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be disdained” applies to nations as well as individuals.

In the political arena, there are a variety of ways to determine where a candidate stands on the public acknowledgment of God, including by whether he supports public displays of the Ten Commandments (which 76 percent of the nation does ), public displays of holiday symbols (which 81 percent of the nation does ), prayer at school events and gatherings (supported by 82 percent of the country), government funding of faith-based programs (supported by 75 percent), etc. (Information will be presented shortly about how to examine a candidate’s voting record to determine where he stands on public religious acknowledgments.) The nation understands better than most public officials that public recognitions of God do not violate the separation of church and state; after all, the same Bible that teaches to publicly acknowledge and honor God also simultaneously teaches that there is to be a separation between the two institutions of Church and State.

Recall that God Himself separated the two institutions by placing Moses over the civil affairs and Aaron over the spiritual ones – the nation was one but the jurisdictions were two; and both acknowledged and honored God. That model was maintained throughout the Scriptures – as clearly demonstrated in 11 Chronicles 26.
That account involves King Uzziah of Judah (808-739BC) – an outstanding ruler whose fame spread across the civilized world as the nation prospered under his leadership. His personal piety was known and he openly and boldly honored God throughout his kingdom – all of which, according to the Scripture, was commendable. But then a dramatic change occurred when Uzziah “entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense” (v. 16) – a duty that had been reserved by God strictly for His priests. Uzziah – civil ruler over the kingdom – had decided that he would also take unto himself the function of a priest by burning incense on the altar.

Similarly, in Great Britain (which began openly embracing homosexual conduct decades ago and finally adopted homosexual marriage, or its equivalent, in 2005), a recent report now laments, “Marriage hits lowest rate since records began almost 150 years ago.” These and other international statistics clearly demonstrate that weakening heterosexual marriage increases out-of-wedlock births.

In America, where the same trend of the open acceptance of homosexuality has now begun, out-of-wedlock birth rates have started to soar, resulting in staggering societal costs in both economic and human terms. For example, in human terms, those in America born out of wedlock are not only seven times more likely to end up in poverty  but they currently represent 70 percent of America’s prison population. (For those who believe that addressing poverty should be a priority for people of faith, one of the best ways to address it is to prevent individuals from going into poverty – which means policies strengthening morals and marriage, not weakening them.) In economic consequences, $112 billion is spent annually to address the numerous societal problems caused by out-of-wedlock births.

Imagine taking America’s current problems with out-of-wedlock births and increasing them by up to 60 percent – as has occurred in Scandinavian nations following the adoption of homosexual marriage. (Incidentally, those nations seem to be unable to cope with the economic costs of the problems generated by the lack of moral restraint on behavior. For example, the tax rate in Scandinavian nations such as Denmark has reached 68 percent, with the lowest tax rate in that country being 42 percent. )

Empirical evidence from across the world demonstrates that homosexuality not only destroys the traditional definition of marriage but also weakens marriage in general, which clearly harms a society. Understanding this, the U. S. Supreme Court had earlier acknowledged:

Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; [the family is] the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization – the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

State Supreme Courts were equally succinct in their declarations:

The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary. . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.

There is a tangible societal consequence of not embracing God’s moral law – and not just in the area of homosexuality, for statistics also affirm the detrimental effects of other forms of moral misbehavior (e.g., adultery, pre-marital sex, living together before marriage, etc.). So why single out a candidate’s stand on homosexuality above other moral misbehaviors? Because homosexuality is currently the focus of favorable political action; the others are not. It is therefore appropriate to investigate a candidate’s position on homosexuality.

For example, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced a plan to repeal the centuries-old ban on homosexuals in the military and also declared her dream of becoming ”the first U. S. President to march in a Gay Pride parade,”  but Barack Obama has gone even further. He embraces the same positions but is also seeking the repeal of DOMA (the federal Defense Of Marriage Act that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws). So emboldened are homosexuals by the favorable attention given them by Obama that:

The Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute is teaming up with homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Stonewall Democrats, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force for an initiative called the “Presidential Appointments Project.” It is being billed as a “talent bank” for openly homosexual professionals who want to “set or influence” policies of a potential . . . [presidential] administration.
Where a candidate stands on the issue of homosexuality is one of the best indicators of whether that candidate embraces the moral absolutes established by God, and consideration of this issue should therefore be a priority when examining a presidential candidate.

This is a further repetition of the alleged special rights of minorities in the Senate. The Constitution provides the identical rights for minorities in both the House and Senate; both have the right of free speech and persuasion. However, Senate rules and modern traditions have altered the original intent in a way to allow the minority to control the majority in most instances (e.g., through the use of filibuster, issuing a “hold” on a bill, blue-card rules for judges, etc.).

. . . .
[T]he will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. FEDERALIST 39, BY JAMES MADISON

[I]n the federal republic of the United States. . . . the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. . . . [A] coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former [the minority] by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter [the majority], or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. FEDERALIST 51, BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON OR JAMES MADISON

On three separate occasions during the very short outline of the Senate virtual theater presentation, there has been an emphasis on what is an extra-constitutional practice at best and an un-constitutional practice at worst. Even more disturbing, this practice has been endorsed on multiple occasions as a part of the original intentions of the Framers. Any such claim is patently and palpably false; it is taking today’s views undoubtedly loving embraced by some and then attaching a constitutional endorsement of those views by imputing them to be original ideas of the Framers.

Stick to what is historically demonstrable; and there is no substantiation for the view that the ability to express minority views through the practice of unlimited debate has any basis in original intentions; while there was concern for minority views, and they were always permitted to be expressed, they simply were not allowed to dominate or thwart the will of the majority as has become the current practice.