Today we are experiencing a deep and dramatic cultural shift in America; largely a reaction to the implementation of socialist ideals by the current Democratic leadership. One of the most promising effects of the Tea Party movement is a serious and renewed interest in understanding and passing on to the next generation the fundamental principles upon which the great American Experiment was founded. 

Thanks to Glenn Beck, I recently discovered an excellent book that provides a compelling portrait of the Father of our Country as a deeply religious Christian and truly a great American patriot. Peter Lillback and Jerry Newcombe are the authors of this book, George Washington’s Sacred Fire. Lillback is the President of Westminster Theological Seminary and Professor of Historical Theology. 

The authors prove the case that, based on Washington’s own writings, the writings of his contemporaries, and reliable oral historical accounts, George Washington was a devout Christian, in the Anglican (Episcopalian) tradition of his time. Every HS/College student who takes an American History class should be aware of this book as a resource. The book’s 750 pages of closely-argued content are supplemented with an additional 450 pages of (very small print) appendix and footnotes. Each chapter demonstrates, using Washington’s own writings and other written and oral sources that the Deist label simply does not fit.   Here are a few examples.

Washington was an active member and church leader (vestryman) in the Old Pahick Church near Mount Vernon, then later at Christ Church, Alexandria. Lillback says he was a “serious but not strict” church attender. The liturgy included readings from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer –which could not be recited by a Deist in good conscience. He was an investor in publishing the very evangelical “Self-Interpreting Bible” by Rev. John Brown. Washington’s affirmation of divine revelation in Scripture is demonstrated as he wrote of “The blessed religion revealed in the word of God”, “the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained” [reference to the Ten Commandments], [among the many blessings Heaven has bestowed on America] “above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation.” He approved of the Bible being given to his soldiers. He was biblically literate, affirmed biblical doctrines and clearly denied the Deist rejection of special revelation. He referred to Deists as “infidels.”

In existing documents Washington referred to God about 146 times, Providence about 270 times, and used other titles for God hundreds of other times. It is evident that he had a rich and sincere prayer life by his many references to prayer, his written prayers and third-party references to his prayer life. In the darkest hours of the Revolutionary War when his army wintered at Valley Forge he labored in prayer, frequently morning and evening, for clothing, supplies, support and success. He insisted that chaplains be hired to serve the army and he instructed officers and soldiers to attend services and pray for America. He not only prayed for success, he frequently attributed success in the war to Divine Providence: “I can never trace the concatenation of causes, which led to these events, without acknowledging the mystery and admiring the goodness of Providence. To that superintending Power alone is our retraction from the brink of ruin to be attributed.” So he believed that God had answered prayer (not a Deist concept).

Lillback ably answers specific issues raised by Boller and others, including the charge that Washington never (or rarely) took communion.  It is true that for several years Washington did not take communion in Philadelphia’s Anglican church. He did not disclose his reasons. He did however take communion with a Presbyterian congregation in an orchard in Pennsylvania, and also immediately following his oath of office as the first President. There are several possible reasons for his abstinence. Conscience – He may have abstained because at one point the Bishop was a Tory and he was of course leading the revolution, and in another case the Bishop supported the High Church [under the authority of the King of England, rejected non-Anglicans as being apostate] while Washington was Low Church. Communion was only held 3-4 times a year. It was a separate service following the sermon, and typically more than half of the congregation left before communion, showing that it was not given a high priority in the Low Church tradition. At any rate, there is no record that he spoke or wrote anything opposing or disputing communion, and he did frequently refer to the elements of communion symbolically. Lillback writes “we conclude that Washington had personal, theological, and ecclesiastical reasons not to commune in Philadelphia. But none of them required him to have been a Deist.”

The book is thorough. Lillback deals with Washington’s correspondence with Thomas Paine (who Washington publicly opposed with respect to “The Age of Reason”),  the Masonic Order,  Slavery, his relationship with Sally Fairfax (early romance, good friend), and his writings specifically in opposition to Deism.

In his First Inaugural Address on April 30, 1789, Washington said:

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

Washington’s “sacred fire” was his belief that God entrusted a specific gift – the gift of liberty – uniquely to the American people. Lillback writes “The ‘sacred fire of liberty’… is not in danger of burning out. Instead the danger is that the ‘sacred fire’ is becoming a secular fire… in danger of burning out of control. There is a crucial difference between the sacred and the secular fire… it is the difference between ordered liberty and moral anarchy, between liberty and licentiousness.” Washington believed in ordered liberty, liberty under God’s law. Washington rejected the licentious secular fire of Deists like Thomas Paine, the wild fire that was unleashed by the French Revolution that resulted in widespread bloodshed.

Washington steadfastly believed that God (Providence) had blessed the young nation in many ways – he experienced many of them personally, in answer to prayer – and God had entrusted America with a sacred gift, the gift of liberty. 

I encourage every American to re-acquaint themselves with the great Father of our Country, George Washington. 

Washington should be the primary model for today’s politicians. He was a true servant-leader with deep convictions rooted in faith. He did not covet power; rather he coveted returning home to a more simple life with his family. He was measured and careful with his words in private as in public. He had a great vision for the country and he inspired the people.  He was devout and steady in prayer, praying morning and night even under most extreme conditions. He was truly a great American. 

I hope for renewed scholarly activity and new, more accurate biographies and histories of the period that capture not only the facts and best interpretations of the Founding Fathers, but also renew the spirit of America.  We deeply need it.

Reference: “George Washington’s Sacred Fire” by Peter Lillback and “These Truths We Still Hold” by Matthew Spalding.

P.S. The book is polemical in tone, not written as a general history, and it is repetitive at times. I also found deeply inspiring glimpses into General Washington’s character and religious life by reading hundreds of quotes, many of which seem to have been either unknown or overlooked by others.  

 Among the many things that I find difficult to understand is this: “Why do so many smart and well-educated people, in the 21st Century, believe Leftist narratives that can be easily refuted?” Or, as Ronald Reagan once quipped “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

J. Budziszewski once wrote that “There are certain forms of stupidity that one has to be highly intelligent and educated to commit.” He was speaking from personal experience. As a young man he had been a Materialist, believing that the material world is the only reality that exists. Then his wife asked him “Do you really love me?” and he had to acknowledge that life could not be fully explained by his philosophy. Eventually he became a Christian.

There are many factors to consider when anyone asks “Why do I believe what I believe?” I want to focus today on why Leftists believe what they believe. 

Leftists are utopian ideologues - you might say they are true believers because they believe what they believe not because of facts or reality, but in spite of the facts.  They will ridicule Christians or Muslims by referring to them as true believers (believing myths in spite of the facts), but rarely will they examine their reasons for holding their worldview. I think most liberals are unaware of their own assumptions and motivations.

 Leftist ideology is like a religion. Most myths of the Left are easily refuted by looking objectively at facts and applying reason to our experience. It doesn’t require great intelligence to see that many Leftist mantras are simply false.  See my previous blog on The World Turned Upside Down by Melanie Phillips, or read Michael Medved’s books The Ten Big Lies about America and The 5 Big Lies about American Business.  

So why do these lies persist among such intelligent people?   

1.      Self-Image. They want to be seen as sophisticated, cool and intelligent. As someone wrote of an Obama Cabinet meeting, they all believe themselves to be “the smartest people in the room.” Actually, make that “the smartest people in America.” They are progressive, educated and above all smart. They are smart precisely because they believe these Leftist ideas. They satisfy their vanity with the belief that common people holding traditional views cannot possibly be right – the truth must be found in unorthodox, contrarian views. But C. S. Lewis wrote of a shocking experience, one that revolutionized his thinking (he was an atheist at this time) when he realized that an idea is not necessarily untrue just because it is old. “Chronological snobbery” was the term he used to describe it. Sadly it is just as popular among intellectuals today to argue that an idea (like Christianity for example) cannot possibly be true because it is so outdated.  Just think about the daily marketing of this perception: it completely saturates the media: New is good and right; old is blasé, to be discarded with yesterday’s newspaper. Leftists dominate education, the media and creative arts. They are in control. They now are the establishment! Sophistication and snobbery are tools wielded to maintain power.

2.      Utopian Ideals. Leftists are warriors in a noble cause. They will save the planet, or create the brotherhood of man, or purge mankind of corruption, or (as with the Islamists) they will create the Kingdom of God on earth. What they all have in common is a totalitarian mindset in pursuit of their utopia. They can accommodate no deviation, so they must coerce submission in the cause of a greater good (the end justifies the means). They therefore have more in common with Fascism than any of them would dare to admit. Almost all leftists are totally blind to this truth. Melanie Phillips wrote “The unsettling fact is that it is possible for bad deeds to be done for the highest of ideals. Those wanting to bring about the perfect society see no higher ideal than that. Ever since the French Revolution, all such impossible agendas have led straight to persecution, tyranny and totalitarianism--to the French Terror, to the gulags, to Auschwitz and to the use of children as human bombs; yet the true believers in each case believed they acted from the highest of motives.” That is one reason intellectuals are drawn by the Left--they love abstract ideals and don’t care much about their practical outworking or about their effects on real people. Read Paul Johnson’s amazing stories of Rousseau, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemmingway, Chomsky and others in his book The Intellectuals for heart-wrenching examples. 

3.      Peer Pressure. In “The Academy” as university professors like to refer to themselves, Political Correctness has become a dogmatic moralizing agenda that stamps out dissent through professional ostracism and legal discrimination. Phillips writes “It is a kind of secular inquisition. And the grand inquisitors are to be found within the intelligentsia--in the universities, the media, the law, the political and professional classes--who not only have systematically undermined the foundations of Western society but are heavily engaged in attempting to suppress any challenge or protest.” The inquisition has been operating for many years against scientists that support Intelligent Design or oppose Global Warming, against anyone who would criticize the Gay Agenda or discuss absolute moral values, against Conservatives and Christians. An un-tenured professor quite literally risks his career by simply engaging in what most Americans believe to be a fundamental right – engaging in the freedom of speech. PC police are firmly in control of public higher education. Without question, many academics conform outwardly to PC rules in order to keep their job, their reputation and their professional standing.

4.      Postmodern Philosophy. Postmodern philosophy has provided an intellectual basis for this escape from reason.  Phillips writes that “Its ‘deconstruction’ of the idea of truth has produced a public discourse built upon a repudiation of objective knowledge and a concomitant openness to the falsehoods of ideology or propaganda.” This is seen in pseudo-scientific fields such as climate change, but manifestly in journalism. The rationale goes like this: There is no absolute or objective Truth. All truth is subjective perception. Society creates truth by repeating narratives often enough that a majority of people believe them. Postmodern Journalists believe it is their job to create narratives that become true -- in this way they are creators of a better world! There is no necessary correlation to facts, logic, history or what ordinary people consider reality. [If you don’t believe me, just look into the JournoList story.]

5.      Ideology. In describing her interview with atheist author Richard Dawkins, Phillips asked “How could the standard-bearers of rational thought have become so irrational [as to believe that life could have come from aliens from an alternative universe]?” The answer is that they have a higher commitment to their ideology of naturalism than to the proven methods of scientific inquiry. “Scorning religious faith as superstition, scientists such as Dawkins or Crick flirt instead with nonsense straight out of science fiction.” Whether Materialistic Naturalism, Marxism, New Age, or just the precepts of Political Correctness, their refusal to examine objective facts with an open mind demonstrates a religious type of belief and a-priori commitment to an ideology.

6.      Spiritual Vacuum. All of the Leftist movements are attempts in various contexts to address a spiritual emptiness in the human condition. They are all attempt to address that emptiness without reference to God. You can almost hear Richard Dawkins crying out “Anything But God!” For many in the Left, the thought that a real God might actually exist (and have a moral claim on their lives) is apparently so dreadful that they prefer to live in an upside down world of lies, spin and deception.

7.      Spiritual Mood. As the lies become more blatant and cynical and the deceptions more powerful, do you think that, just maybe, there might be an evil force at work in the world after all? If you are ready to entertain that thought, I recommend that you read The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis right away.  For a little perspective, about 3,000 years ago Solomon wrote "Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:  How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?  How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?"  Apparently the answer is -- for at least 3,000 years.

How can one engage in profitable conversation with a Leftist? One good approach is to ask questions, to help them identify and examine “why” they believe what they believe.  

• What people influenced them? What books? What ideas?
• What are the reasons they believe?
• What are the facts they rely on and how reliable are those facts or sources of information?
• What life experiences have influenced them?
• What is “reality” to them?
• Are they truly open to facts – and are they willing to do the work to determine who is lying when there is a dispute about the facts?
• What is their personal experience with spiritual experiences or with religious or spiritual people?
• Have they developed prejudices or negative attitudes and are they willing to overcome them?
• Are they willing to re-assess their worldview or opinions if new or better information is available to them?

Let me know what you learn.

Why is our world upside down? Why is fiction cast as truth while facts are simply ignored as if they didn’t exist, or denied on the grounds that those who bring them forward are either evil or deranged?

Melanie Phillips, in her recent book The World Turned Upside Down, answers the question brilliantly and forcefully. She describes the climate of unreason in which evidence, reason and logic have been exiled in favor of irrationality, ideology and prejudice. “Much of the Western mind has been closed tightly shut.” Here are a few of the Big Lies of the Left.

1.      Anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is leading to a catastrophe of epic proportions. This is one example of the triumph of ideology over science. Phillips argues that the science of Global Warming is far from conclusive; much scientific data does not support the theory. Clearly it was ideology that drove scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia to manipulate and distort data. Roy Spenser, in his devastating book The Great Global Warming Blunder, further demonstrates that the Global Warming movement is primarily ideological and political; its proponents (activists and scientists alike) are closed to the results of true scientific inquiry. Roy, a climatologist, uses earth temperature data to prove that one of the critical assumptions of all of the IPCC computer models used to predict global catastrophe is false; thus the models provide wildly incorrect predictions. Yet most mainstream Global Warming scientists ignore his study - apparently it represents an inconvenient truth.

2.      George Bush and Tony Blair lied about WMD.  “The Iraq war is illegitimate and thousands died as a result of this lie.” This myth was created by the Left and repeated by the media so relentlessly that it became ‘fixed in the public mind as unquestionable reality’ in the U.S. and Britain. This myth energized leftist opposition to George Bush (and played directly into the election of Obama) and it played a large role in Tony Blair’s fall from power. The lie is easy to disprove; simply read news reports leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Quoting Phillips, “From the actual speeches and written statements by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, it is clear that the stockpiles were not the main point at all. The overwhelming emphasis was instead on Saddam’s refusal to obey binding United Nations Resolutions and the need to enforce the authority of the UN; on Saddam’s concomitant failure to prove that he had destroyed his stocks of WMD and to renounce his intention to continue developing such weapons; and on the unconscionable danger posed by the ‘triple lock’ of his attachment to such weapons and his past record of using them, his regional ambitions and hostility to the west, and his connections to terrorism.”
Phillips describes direct testimony, including Saddam’s Air Vice-Marshall, indicating the likelihood that Saddam hid WMD material and transported it to Syria. 
This lie reveals a stunning reality about the mainstream media. Phillips quotes journalist Jonathan Foreman:
“The British chattering classes are convinced almost to a man (or woman) that Guantanamo is at best a gulag in which all the detainees are innocent victims of paranoia and aggression, and where the quotidian tortures rival those of the Gestapo. They ‘know’ that the war in Iraq is really about stealing oil, doing Israel’s bidding, boosting corporate profits, or some vicious combination of all three… Radical Islamism is somehow a creation of these wars rather than a phenomenon that preceded 9/11, and that solving the Palestinian question will somehow bring peace between Shia and Sunni and end bin Ladenite dreams of restoring the medieval caliphate.”

3.      Israel is the oppressor, Palestinians are victims. The Left is in massive denial of the threat of radical Islam. They view world events through the lens of anti-Zionism. Phillips writes “Among the educated and high-minded classes in particular, Israel inspires an obsessional hatred of a type and scale that is directed to no other country… [the discussion of Israel] is presented in such a way as to drive out truth and rationality. History is turned on its head; facts and falsehoods, victims and victimizers are reversed; logic is suspended; and a fictional narrative is now widely accepted as incontrovertible truth… The fraught issue of Israel sits at the epicenter of the West’s repudiation of reason.”

4.      Anti-Zionists claim that Jews have no right to Israel, yet the League of Nations recognized Israel as the Jewish homeland dating back to the time of Abraham, when the Jewish National Homeland was instituted in 1922. Further, they claim that Israelis stole the land from Arab Palestinians, who are the victims of Israeli colonization. Most of the land was purchased by Jews from the Arabs and most of the people living in Palestine are immigrants, not natives. Arab propaganda (endorsed by the UN) claims that Israel “illegally occupies” the West Bank, however the truth is that it was part of the territory established by the Mandate of 1922 and is legitimately part of Israel under international law. 

5.      Israel is committing “genocide” against the Palestinians. Not true. The facts are that the population of the West bank and Gaza increased from 240,000 to 1.5 million since 1950; infant mortality dropped from 100 to 23 per 1000; average life span increased from 48 to 72 years; and literacy became almost 100%. There is no evidence supporting the claim of genocide. Yet it is ignorantly repeated over and over among Western elitists. Staged, produced videos of “atrocities” and “intentional attacks on Palestinian civilians” are created by Palestinians and fed to the Western press, which dutifully reports them to the world as fact without any significant investigation as to their validity. Phillips reports “There is no other world conflict that is so obsessively falsified [by the press]. Where Israel is involved, truth and reason are totally suspended. Irrationality and hysteria rule instead.”

6.      Scientific materialism can answer all the important questions of metaphysics (Does God Exist?) and origins. Phillips interviewed Richard Dawkins, who admitted that he was “not necessarily averse to the idea that life on earth had been created by a governing intelligence--provided that such an intelligence had arrived on earth from another planet.” Anything but God! She writes “how scientists such as Francis Crick of Richard Dawkins, who one might have thought would be committed with every fiber of their being to evidence-based reasoning, could possibly entertain such elaborately contrived theories with no more claim to be taken seriously than fantasies conjured up from the imagination. How could the standard-bearers of rational thought have become so irrational?”  The answer is that they have a higher commitment to their ideology of naturalism than to the proven methods of scientific inquiry. “Scorning religious faith as superstition, scientists such as Dawkins of Crick flirt instead with nonsense straight out of science fiction.”

You have a choice. What kind of America do you want? In what kind of environment do you want to work and raise a family? Which represents your vision for our future?

Simply put, the American People must remove Leftists from positions of power in our Government and other public institutions. We do that peacefully and legally through the political process. 

We can count on the Mainstream Media to continue to spin the news in favor of the Left. We can count on lots of fierce opposition because the Left is in power and they are ruthless in protecting their power.  

We can’t sit back and watch. It’s up to EVERY ONE OF US who wants to restore America’s greatness to get involved. Here are a few ways you can start. 

• Attend a Tea Party
• Talk to your friends about Tea Parties, ask what they know about the Tea Party movement
• Invite some friends to a Tea Party
• Get the Tea Party video and invite some friends to watch it
• Forward this email to your friends
• Use Facebook, Twitter, etc. to encourage others to get in the game
• VOTE –( the most important thing)
• Encourage your friends to vote
• Volunteer to help a conservative candidate get elected. Focus on the US House and Senate races where a conservative has a reasonable chance of victory (look outside your own district or state). Contribute time (phone calls, etc.) and money.
• Write emails promoting the cause and endorsing good candidates.

~

• The Government will decide what is covered and what conditions/procedures/medications are not covered (based on statistical analysis, not medical practice)
• Readmission to the hospital (for the same condition) will be determined by the Government (not your Doctor) based on statistics (a minimum % of people with that condition must be discharged) 
• It is Government rationing, "straight up" with no appeals or judical review possible (Government bureaucrat decisions cannot be appealed to any court - "The Secretary is above the courts"
• EVERYONE is forced into a plan; if you are not in a plan the IRS will collect a special tax from you
• Health Savings Accounts and catastrophic insurance are illegal
• All business-provided health plans will have to meet minimum standards or employers will be taxed 8%
• Many businesses will opt for the lower-cost Government plan, therefore all of their employees will be shifted to the Government plan with no choice
• All private plans must be approved by the Commissioner and meet Government requirements
• It will cost higher-income families much more than others in tax "surcharges"
• The Government has unlimited authority to set fee structures (see Medicare above) and to determine what is "adequate payment" for medical services, prescriptions, etc.  (Price controls - not cost controls)

"More than a million people have signed a petition to stop Obamacare, and the president and his Chicago-rules enforcers have serially insulted each one of them and every other citizen who rejects Obamacare for any of many reasons"

"Principle Four: The left imposes its values on others whenever possible and to the extent possible. That is why virtually every totalitarian regime in the 20th century was left-wing. Inherent to all left-wing thought is a totalitarian temptation. People on the left know that not only are their values morally superior to conservative values, but that they themselves are morally superior to conservatives. Thus, for example, the former head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, could say in all seriousness, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don't think children ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Therefore, the morally superior have the right, indeed the duty, to impose their values on the rest of us: what light bulbs we use, what cars we drive, what we may ask a prospective employee, how we may discipline our children, and, of course, how much of our earnings we may keep.

It is dishonest to argue that the right wants to impose its values to anywhere near the extent the left does. This can be demonstrated to a fifth-grader: Who wants more power -- those who want to govern a big state or those who want to govern a small state?

The president of the United States and the much of the Democratic Party embody these left-wing principles. Right now, America's only hope of staying American rather than becoming European lies in making these principles as clear as possible to as many Americans as possible. The left is so giddy with power right now, we actually have a chance."

"Dissent against the left is another matter. To Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and to the New York Times Paul Krugman and every other left-wing commentator I have read on the issue, those who dissent against the Obama/Democratic Party health care plan are not only not patriotic; they are Nazis, mobs, white racists (according to Krugman's non-sequitur thesis) and are always organized. They are activists sent by health insurance companies, the Republican Party, or by some other nefarious right-wing organization."

 

 Prager characterizes the left as being emotional and belief-oriented, without necessarily having rational or factual basis for many of those beliefs.  This explains their highly emotional reactions (Pelosi, Obama) to opposition.  They are lacking in facts and common-sense logic to support what they want to do, so they demonize the opposition.  That's their standard response.  I agree with his assessment.  Those of us who envision a very different outcome from their proposed policies need to stay calm and engage in reasonable and principled conversation and debate.  Most Americans respond better to that approach, and they are beginning to see through the hyper-emotional rhetoric and demoagoguery of the left.  

 

We need to begin demanding that the media start thinking seriously about the consequences of implementing the leftist agenda.  There are hundreds of very penetrating questions begging to be asked.  Who is up to the task?