\WHY THE MODERN CRUSADE TO SILENCE PRAYER IS NOT ONLY UNGODLY, BUT ALSO "UNAMERICAN"

For the first 180 years of this nation’s existence, prayer was as American as mom, baseball, and apple pie. Americans prayed--everywhere. It was part of our heritage. In my own lifetime, I can remember when prayer was a common thing at high school graduations, high school football games, city council meetings, and just about any public venue.

This began to drastically change when the Supreme Court, in 1962, banned prayer in public schools. Since that time there has been a growing hostility toward Christian prayer, and a crusade to ban it in every public venue.

A recent target of this un-American, anti-prayer crusade is Joe Kennedy of Bremerton High School in Washington state, a Marine Corps veteran and coach of the football team. Kennedy has a long tradition of kneeling to pray at the end of each football game and is often joined by some of the players.

He was recently notified by the District Superintendent, Aaron Leavell, that his public prayers must stop, even though it is a personal prayer on his part and no one is required, or even asked, to join him. The notification to cease and desist included the added warning, “Your talks with students may not include religious expressions, including prayer. They must remain entirely secular in nature.”

This is ironic in light of the fact that America was birthed in prayer. Prayer played a vital role in its beginning—at each Continental Congress, with George Washington, with the Continental Army, and with the American populace in general. We might say that prayer was part of being American!

Prayer at the First Continental Congress

The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to decide how to respond to Britain’s growing attempts to tax and control the lives of the colonists without their participation. Because of growing colonial protests, British troops had been dispatched to quell the “disturbances.”

As delegates traveled from New England in the north, and from as far south as South Carolina, it weighed heavily on their minds how two regiments of British troops had just occupied the city of Boston and closed its port.

At the first meeting on September 5, 1774 it was proposed that they begin their deliberations with prayer. Two delegates opposed the motion on the grounds that they were such a diverse religious group—Anglicans, Puritans, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc.—that it would be impossible for them to pray together.

Samuel Adams, a Puritan from Boston, arose and said that he was not a bigoted man and that he could join in prayer with any person of piety and virtue who loved his country. He went on to say that although he was a stranger to Philadelphia he had heard of an Anglican minister, a Rev. Dusche, who was such a man and proposed that they invite him to come and lead them in prayer.

Adams proposal was approved and Dusche was asked to preside over a time of Bible reading and prayer. As the elderly, grey-haired Dusche stood before the Congress, he began by reading the entire 35^th Psalm, which powerfully impacted everyone present. It is a prayer of David for deliverance and begins with the words, Plead my cause O LORD with those who strive against me; fight against those who fight against me. The Psalm ends with praise for God’s deliverance.

As the Psalm was read, a unique sense of God’s presence filled the room and tears flowed from many eyes. John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail of the impact of the Bible reading and prayer on the delegates. He said;

Who can realize the emotions with which they turned imploringly to heaven for divine interposition and aid. It was enough to melt a heart of stone. I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seems as if heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read that day. I saw tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave pacific Quakers of Philadelphia. I must beg you to read that Psalm (Hyatt, America’s Revival Heritage, 69).

After reading the Psalm, Dusche began praying for the delegates, for America, and especially for the city of Boston and its inhabitants who were under siege. As he began praying, the Anglicans, such as George Washington and Richard Henry Lee, knelt in prayer according to their custom. The Puritans, according to their custom, sat with bowed heads and prayed. Others prayed according to their own unique customs. But although their outward manners differed, there was a singleness of heart and purpose as they all united in prayer for God’s assistance and intervention for America.

The Influence of the Great Awakening

This could only happen because there had been a great Spiritual awakening (1726-1770) that created a moral and prayerful tone throughout the colonies. When, for example, the Great Awakening came to Philadelphia, prayer became so prominent that Benjamin Franklin said that one could not walk down any street in the city without hearing prayer and praise coming from houses on every street (Eddie Hyatt, The Faith & Vision of Benjamin Franklin,33).

Through the incessant labors of revivalists like George Whitefield, denominational walls were broken down and the scattered colonists, for the first time, began to see themselves as “one nation under God.” Through the Great Awakening, prayer became a very real part of the American experience. Prayer became as American as mom and apple pie.

George Washington Institutes Prayer

Prayer continued to be vital part of the proceedings of the Continental Congresses. In fact, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 Benjamin Franklin reminded the delegates how that during the war (1775-1783) “we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection” (Hyatt, The Faith &Vision of Benjamin Franklin, 62).

During the Second Continental Congress (1775-1781), where there was daily prayer, it was unanimously decided to declare independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence was then issued on July 4, 1776. They also asked George Washington to become the commander-in-chief of the ragtag continental army.

Washington accepted the call and immediately set out to bring a moral discipline to the troops. He issued an order that there was to be no drunkenness or profanity and that each day was to begin with prayer led by the officers of each unit. He also ordered that unless their duties required them to be elsewhere, every soldier was to observe, “a punctual attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of heaven upon the means used for our safety and public defense.”

The Congress and the Nation Prays

During the War, the Continental Congress issued no less than fifteen proclamations of “humiliation and prayer” calling on all Americans to set aside particular days to fast and pray for God’s assistance to their cause. The proclamation of 1779 urged the nation “humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God” to ask “that He would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis of religion [Christianity] and virtue.”

At the close of the war, George Washington wrote a circular letter, dated June 14, 1783, to the governors of the various states, which included his “earnest prayer” that I here quote in part. He wrote;

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens . . .  to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another . . . and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

Here’s How We Must Respond

There is no question that America was birthed in a milieu of prayer. Prayer was such a vital part of the early American experience that in 1787 the “nonreligious” Benjamin Franklin chided the Constitutional Convention for not praying before their deliberations and called on them to pray and ask God for His help and assistance.

So, let us not be intimidated into thinking that prayer is somehow inappropriate for public or political venues. Remember how Tim Tebow was ridiculed by liberal pundits for kneeling on the football field to pray and give thanks to God? Those individuals were obviously uninformed about American history for prayer is American--as American as mom, baseball, and apple pie.

Let us, therefore, be bold in our faith. Let us be salt and light in this generation. Let us pray for another Great Awakening in the land. It is the godly thing to do! It is the American thing to do!

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is an author, historian and ordained minister. His books on Spiritual awakenings in church and American history are available from Amazon and from his website at www.eddiehyatt.com. He is the founder of the Revive America Project, whose goal is to inspire faith and vision for another Great Awakening in the land.

HOW SOCIALISM ALMOST DESTROYED THE PILGRIMS, AND THE ANSWER THEY FOUND THAT WORKED

Many years before socialism brought about the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the inadequacies of socialism were demonstrated right here on American soil. The Pilgrims who landed at Cape Cod in the fall of 1620 at first attempted a communal type of living, but disbanded it when it became obvious their community could not survive with such a system.

The Pilgrims Experience the Pain of Socialism

The Pilgrim’s journey to America was funded by a group of venture capitalists who provided the ship and supplies for their journey to the New World. In return, the Pilgrims agreed to live communally with everyone receiving the same recompense for their work, and with everything above their basic necessities going into a common fund to be used to pay their creditors.

William Bradford, who served as governor of Plymouth for many years, told of the challenges of this socialist system. Young men, he said, resented getting paid the same as older men when they did so much more of the work. As a result they tended to slouch and slack since they knew they would receive the same no matter how hard they worked.

The older men felt they deserved more honor and recompense because of their age and resented getting paid the same as the youngsters in their midst. Bradford said that the women often refused go to the fields to work, complaining of headaches, and to have compelled them to go would have been considered tyranny and oppression.

This socialist system discouraged work and innovation and almost destroyed the colony. When it became obvious that lack and perhaps starvation would be their lot, Bradford and the leaders of the colony decided to make a change. After much prayer and discussion, they decided to dispense with that part of the agreement with their creditors that required them to live communally until their debt was paid.

They Experience the Gain of Free Enterprise

According to Bradford, they then divided the land around them, allotting to each family a certain portion that would be theirs to work and use for their own needs. Bradford said there was an immediate change. The young men began to work much harder because they now knew they would eat the fruit of their own labors. There were no more complaints from the older men for the same reason. And now the women were seen going into the fields to work, taking the children with them, because they knew they and their family would personally benefit.

Instead of lacking food, each family now grew more food and corn than they needed, and they began to trade with one another for furnishings, clothes and other goods. They also had enough excess to trade with the Indians for furs and other items. In short, the colony began to prosper when they got rid of their socialist form of government and implemented a free, entrepreneurial system.

Of their experience with socialism, Bradford wrote;

This community [socialism] was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort . . . and showed the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s, and applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God (Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 120-21).

No Socialism in the Early Church

Based on a superficial reading of Acts 2:44-45; 3:34-37, some claim that the early church practiced a form of socialism. It should be pointed out, however, that their having all things in common was not the result of a system implemented from without, but a voluntary overflow of compassion from within. This is confirmed by the fact that there is no evidence that this community experience was ever suggested anyplace else, or that it continued in Jerusalem.

That no one was required to share their property and goods with others was made clear by the experience of Ananias and Sapphira. This couple sold a piece of land and Ananias brought a portion of the proceeds to Peter but claimed it was the entire amount. He was struck down on the spot and when his wife arrived later and affirmed his lie, she too fell over dead.

Their sin was not that they had kept back some of the proceeds from the sale of their property. They were completely free to keep it all if they had chosen. Their sin was that they lied about what they had given to try and impress Peter and others of their generosity and spirituality. They were hypocritical!

This is clear from the words of Peter who said to Ananias, While it remained was it not your own? And after it was sold was it not in your own control (Acts 5:4)? In other words, the property belonged to them before it was sold and was theirs to utilize however they chose. And after they sold the property, the money was theirs to use as they pleased.

This clearly shows that there were no rules governing how the people used their property and money in the early church in Jerusalem. Ananias and Sapphira were struck down, not for holding back certain monies, but for lying in the midst of a mighty and powerful work of the Holy Spirit.

Christianity & Capitalism

Bradford believed that socialism did not work because it ran counter to God’s will for humanity in a fallen world. Because of mankind’s fallen state, he cannot be expected to labor for no reward. In Scripture, God rewards individuals for their labor and good works. Capitalism works because it is compatible with the reality of human nature and the world in which we live.

For capitalism to fully succeed, however, it must function in a strong Christian milieu. Otherwise, the strong and powerful will trod underfoot the weak and poor. Capitalism worked for the Pilgrims because they were a compassionate people who looked after those in their midst when they were sick, injured or unable to work.

True Christianity brings a compassion that helps the weak and poor, apart from initiative-destroying government programs. This is what happened in the early church and is what happened with the Pilgrims, who wanted to emulate that church.

Conclusion

Just a few years ago, identifying one’s self as a socialist meant being ostracized from most of American society. It would spell doom for a politician. That Bernie Sanders is attracting huge crowds and grabbing so much media attention under that banner shows the change that has occurred in the American mindset. It shows that much of the American populace is willing to look to government as the answer for the nation’s problems.

As Christians, our responsibility is to call people to Christ and help them live out their Christianity in the real world. Living out our Christianity means a life of responsibility, not looking for government handouts but working and prospering in a way that we can give a hand up to those in need. We desire the best for the greatest number of people which is why we must pray for Bernie Sanders, but reject his vision of a government-mandated socialist system in America.

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is an author, historian and ordained minister. His books on Spiritual Awakening and church history are available from Amazon and his website in both paperback and Kindle. To read about his vision for another great Spiritual awakening go to his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

  

CAN A POLITICIAN SAVE US?

For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our King; He will save us (Isaiah 33:22).

In the past few days and weeks, I have experienced a new sense of urgency about America. I sense that this is a defining moment in our nation's history. I believe the next year will determine if America continues to be “one nation under God” with liberty and justice for all, or if it continues its downward slide into an abyss of moral chaos, political lawlessness, foreign invasion, and the loss of the values and freedoms that made it great.

In God We Should Trust

There is hope but we must remember that only God can save us. Human nature has a tendency to look for a human king for deliverance as Israel did in the Old Testament. God wanted to be their king but they rejected him and chose their own carnal, human king because he was "head and shoulders" above the rest of the people. 

That was well and good until their king encountered a giant who towered over him. It must have been heart-wrenching for them to see their king and his army cower in fear and defeat before Goliath. When we trust in natural human resources and abilities, we will always encounter situations that are beyond are ability to deal. Christians in America must not trust in the flesh at this time in history.

I am happy to see what I believe are committed Christians running for president. However, I am concerned to see prophecies come forth  that could have the effect of encouraging people to put their trust in another human king (politician) to save America. We must realize that only God can save us. We must not trust in a politician. We must not trust in the flesh.

Even if a “Christian” president is elected in 2016 he will be unable to reverse the destructive trends unless there is a new and godly moral force in the land unleashed by a national, Spiritual awakening. During the next year there must be a remnant of committed followers of Jesus who pray in faith for another great Spiritual awakening in our land. That is the answer for America and every other nation.

History is On Our Side

In America’s history God has, again and again, saved the nation from ruin by sending Spiritual awakening in response to the sincere prayers of His people. One example is the Great Prayer Awakening of 1857-58, which carried the nation through the Civil War and saved it from total ruin. In this prayer revival, churches and auditoriums were daily filled with people pouring out their hearts to God in prayer and intercession. 

Charles Finney was in Boston that winter and noted that such a spirit of prayer had come upon the people that they preferred prayer meetings to meetings where there was singing and preaching. Led by lay people, the attitude seemed to be, “We have heard preaching until we are hardened. It is time to pray!”

Finney also described it as a time when “a divine influence seemed to pervade the whole land.” He estimated that at the height of this Great Prayer Awakening fifty-thousand were converted in a single week—and that without the aid of modern communication and technology. Conservative estimates place the total number of conversions at close to 1 million.

In Charleston, South Carolina, the black pastor of the Anson Street Presbyterian Church, John Giardeaux, established a prayer meeting in 1858 and exhorted his people to “wait for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” The prayer service grew until the auditorium was overflowing with more than two-thousand people. As on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit suddenly fell upon those at the Anson Street Church.

They began to sob, softly, like the falling of rain; then, with deeper emotion, to weep bitterly, or to rejoice loudly, according to their circumstances. It was midnight before he could dismiss the congregation. The meeting went on night and day for weeks. Large numbers of both black and white were converted and joined churches in the city.

Prayer Changes Things

This spirit of prayer did not stop the war. It did, however, spill over into the war and save the nation from total destruction. The noted historian, Mark A. Noll, says, “Revivals were common in both camps of the Blue and the Gray.”

So strong was the spirit of prayer on both sides that in the early part of the war, when the South seemed to be gaining the upper hand, President Lincoln expressed concern that the “rebel soldiers” were praying more than the Northern troops.

The North did not fare well during the early days of the war. Suffering one defeat after another it looked as though the United States might be destroyed. With things looking grim for the state of the Union, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution asking the president to observe a national day of fasting and prayer.

Lincoln then designated April 30, 1863 as a national day of humiliation, prayer and the confession of national sins, which would include the sin of slavery. After this day of repentance and prayer, there was an almost immediate turn of the war in favor of the North. It happened like this.

Shortly after the North observed the national day of repentance, fasting and prayer, a confident General Robert E. Lee led 76,000 Confederate troops north into Union territory, i.e., into Pennsylvania. The populace was terrified and there was much panic. Lincoln, however, having been impacted by the prayer awakening, found solace in prayer. He said;

When everyone seemed panic-stricken I went to my room and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed. Soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul that God Almighty had taken the whole business into His own hands.

The Confederate forces were defeated at Gettysburg on July 3 and that battle proved to be the turning point for the war. Some would say it was coincidental but the change came on heels of the national day of repentance, prayer and fasting.

The Great Prayer Awakening of 1857-58 saved the nation from total ruin. In their excellent book, Firefall, Malcolm McDow and Alvin Reid write, “The Prayer Revival laid the foundation to give spiritual resources that would help the nation survive this conflict.” With over 600,000 deaths from the war (compared to 50,000 American deaths in WWII), it was by far the greatest tragedy this nation has ever endured and only The Great Prayer Awakening enabled America to survive.

If My People

This is another critical moment in our nation's history, and a politician will not save us. We must not be swayed by prophecies or political rhetoric to put our trust in "man." Let us remember the words of Isaiah to Israel at a very critical time in that nation's history. He wrote, The LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us (Isaiah 33:22). 

Without relinquishing our responsibilities as American citizens, we must turn from any trust in a politician or the next election, and call out to God for His mercy, grace and power on the churches of America. It is time to begin asking God to send another great, national awakening to our land. I am convinced that He is poised and ready to send such an awakening when he finds a people praying in sincere and selfless faith out of love for God and country.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is the founder of "The Revive America Project." To read about his vision for another Great Awakening in America and around the world, visit his website at www.eddiehyatt.com

  

WHY DR. BEN CARSON IS RIGHT ABOUT ISLAM AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

Dr. Benjamin Carson was absolutely right when he said that the American Constitution is incompatible with Islam. The Left, with its naïve vision of the world, went wild in its attacks on the good doctor. They were joined by the Islamic group, CAIR, which demanded that Carson pull out of the race for president because of his comment.

But the facts and history are on the side of Dr. Carson. In Islam, religion and the political goal of world domination are joined together. There is no separation of mosque and state in Islamic thinking. Just look at any nation where Muslims are in the majority--Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.-- and you will NOT find religious freedom. 

The First Amendment is Not Compatible with
Islamic Thinking about Religion & State.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is totally at odds with this sort of thinking. It states that the government will remain neutral in matters of faith but protect the religious freedom of all. This approach reflects the “dissenting Protestant” views of the Founders who wanted a separation of church and state, but not a separate of God and state.

The parents and grandparents of the Founders were godly people who fled religious persecution in the Old World by a state-empowered church. In his Autobiography, Benjamin Franklin tells how his grandfather, during the reign of Mary Tudor, had an open Bible fastened on the bottom and underneath the cover of a stool. With one of the children watching at the door for civil or religious authorities, he would turn the stool upside down and read the Bible to his family. In case of danger, he would quickly secure the pages and return the stool upright to its place in the corner of the room (Eddie Hyatt, The Faith & Vision of Vision of Benjamin Franklin, 71).

The danger was real for during Mary’s reign 288 Protestants were burned at the stake for their faith. The Reformation with its return to Jesus and the New Testament destroyed the idea of merging church and state and using the power of the state to further a national religion.

The merger of mosque and state, however, is basic to Islam and is why Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is an American citizen of Iranian birth, was arrested for apostasy when he returned to Iran to visit his parents. He was imprisoned by this religious-political regime and remains imprisoned today while his wife and two small children pray for his return and plead for this administration’s help.

The First Amendment is an Expression of Reformation Ideals

Those “dissenting Protestants” who came to America were the ones whose ideas of freedom of conscience and religious liberty ultimately triumphed in America. In the First Amendment they were merely stating that America would never have a state church/religion, sanctioned and empowered by the state as existed at that time in Christian Europe and exists in Islamic countries today.

Although they did not want a state church such as their parents had fled, they knew the importance of building on Christian values. They knew that a nation derives its values from religion, which is why in his Farewell Address George Washington warned the new nation to guard its Christian morality and values, which he called “indispensable supports” for political prosperity (Eddie Hyatt, The Faith &Vision of Benjamin Franklin, 75-76).

Although Christians throughout history have failed to live up to the teachings of their Lord, the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament are the only value system that can hold a diverse nation together. The Founders did not want a state church, but without exception, they wanted Christian values taught in every public venue. Even the “nonreligious” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” (Eddie Hyatt, America’s Revival Heritage, 73-74).

No Exclusion of God in the First Amendment

That the First Amendment was not intended to exclude God from government was confirmed when the next day after passing the Amendment, the Founders issued a proclamation for a day of prayer throughout the new nation. That they were not excluding their faith in the God of the Bible from government is highlighted by the fact that George Washington took the oath of office with his hand on a Bible and afterwards proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel for a worship service.

That the First Amendment was not an attack on God was confirmed by Joseph Story (1779-1845) who served as a Supreme Court justice for 34 years from 1811-1845. Commenting on the First Amendment, he said;

We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference in religion, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution.

The American Constitution Designed
for a People with Christian Values

Benjamin Carson is absolutely right that the American Constitution is incompatible with Islam. America was founded on Christian principles and values that emerged out of the Reformation when the church returned to Jesus and the New Testament. Our second president, John Adams, affirmed this when he wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [Christian] people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other” (Eddie Hyatt, The Faith & Vision of Benjamin Franklin, 53).

Concluding Thought

America is in need of another Reformation and Spiritual Awakening that will return it to its founding principles and draw the nominal Christians and Muslims in our nation to Christ. I beg you join with me and others in praying for such a Reformation and Spiritual Awakening in our day. It is the only true hope for America's future.

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is the founder of The Revive America Project with the purpose of teaching America’s radical Christian origins and calling the church to pray for another Great Spiritual Awakening. This article was derived primarily from his latest book, The Faith & Visionof Benjamin Franklin, available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

KIM DAVIS, MARTIN LUTHER & GOVERNMENT TYRANNY

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/08/

video-kim-davis-speaks-after-release-jail

I admire Kim Davis for taking a stand for faith and freedom. It is important at this time in history for every Christian in America to stand for liberty and truth. The issue is no longer about homosexual marriage. It is about whether God-fearing Christians have the right to abide by their conscience and live out their religious convictions.

The homosexual couple who sued Davis could have easily gone to another county and obtained a license. They targeted Davis because of her faith. Getting Davis’ signature on their license was a matter of conquest, and government officials sided with them.

This is known as tyranny—the use of governmental force to try and force a person to act against their conscience and religious convictions. Government officials who stand idly by and say nothing are guilty of giving their tacit approval to such tyranny. They are tyrants!

The situation with Davis reminds me of the time Martin Luther was summoned before a tribunal of bishops, cardinals, papal legates and the emperor himself, and ordered to recant his teachings on faith and freedom or face imprisonment and even death. We can only imagine the pressure he felt to give in to their demands.

Luther was given one night to make his decision. He spent the night in prayer and deep thought and deliberation. By morning he knew what he would do. He would take a stand.

Brought once again before the tribunal he was again ordered to recant and they then waited for his response. Luther replied;

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason, I cannot and will not recant anything. I am convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the word of God. Acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand! I can do no other! So help me God!

Luther's stand for freedom of conscience and his religious convictions had incredible ramifications for his generation and changed world history. Religious liberty and freedom of conscience became hallmarks of Western civilization. Those very freedoms are now being challenged by a militant, anti-Christian crusade.

I pray that Kim Davis will be strengthened to abide by her conscience and religious convictions. Much is at stake for this generation and generations to come. We will either be ruled by God or by tyrants. It is time to take a stand!

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is an author, historian and ordained minister. You can read about his ministry and vision for Spiritual awakening at www.eddiehyatt.com. He will be at Christian Life Assembly of God in Picayune, Mississippi September 27-28 for a "Spiritual Awakening Weekend."  For more info. check the church's Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christian-Life-Assembly-of-God-Picayune/156829901024090?sk=info&tab=overview

HILLARY CLINTON VS. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ON GOD, LIBERTY & GOVERNMENT

Hillary's Frightening Vision for America

In a recent speech Hillary Clinton declared that certain “religious beliefs” are a hindrance to her vision for America. Obviously referring to evangelical Christians and their views on life and marriage, she made it clear that she wants to aggressively confront and change this “wrong thinking" in American society, telling her liberal audience, “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

What is troublesome is that she would bring this change, not by employing persuasive arguments, but by the brute force of governmental power. In a conversation with activists from the “Black Lives Matter” movement, she said, “I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”

Like the old secularist, Soviet empire, Hillary and the DNC would use the strong arm of government to force a change in the religious beliefs that they deem unacceptable and threatening to their vision. This would explain why they were silent just recently when a federal judge blocked a Mississippi high school band from performing at their school’s football game simply because their repertoire included the Christian hymn, “How Great Thou At.” That hymn obviously expresses the sort of “religious beliefs” she and the DNC want to change.

By way of contrast, Benjamin Franklin, one of America's most nonreligious Founders, was an advocate of religious liberty and wanted Christian principles and values taught in every public domain. Contrasting Hillary with Franklin highlights how far she and the DNC have strayed from the vision of America's Founders. Although Franklin questioned certain aspects of Christian doctrine during his life, he believed Christian virtue and morality to be absolute necessities for a stable society and prosperous nation. Franklin would vehemently oppose Hillary Clinton and the DNC because of the following three positions he held concerning God, liberty, and government.

Position #1

Franklin Wanted God in the Government

Whereas Hillary wants God out of government, Franklin wanted God to be a vital part of government. This was made obvious early in his career when war between Spain and Great Britain erupted in 1739.

Concerned that a Spanish warship could visit their coast, Franklin led the way in organizing citizen militias and building fortifications with cannon at the edge of the city of Philadelphia. He then proposed that the Assembly and civic leaders issue a call for a day of prayer and fasting, “to implore the blessing of Heaven on our undertaking.”

The people of Philadelphia had no knowledge of a public day of prayer and fasting, but Franklin was able draw on his Puritan roots in New England where public days of prayer and fasting had been observed since the time the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth in 1620. He wrote;

They embraced the motion; but as it was the first fast ever thought of in the province, the secretary had no precedent from which to draw the proclamation. My education in New England, where a fast is proclaimed every year, was here of some advantage. I drew it in the accustomed style; it was translated into German, printed in both languages, and divulged through the province (Hyatt, The Faith & Vision of Benjamin Franklin, 39).

Franklin and all of Pennsylvania, including government officials, thus participated in a day of prayer and fasting, imploring God’s blessing and protection on their colony. Even at this early stage of his life he obviously saw no conflict between God, prayer and government.

That Franklin wanted trust in God to be a part of governmental affairs was also made clear when he called the Constitutional Convention to prayer in 1787. He began his address by reminding the delegates that during the war when they were sensible to danger, they had daily prayers in that very room where they were hammering out the American Constitution.

Addressing George Washington, the Convention President, he said, "Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered." Then reminding the delegates that they needed God in the building of the nation, he went on to say,

I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? (Hyatt, The Faith & Vision of Benjamin Franklin,62-63).

Hillary and the DNC would have opposed these prayer events proposed by Franklin. Based on their twisted understanding of the First Amendment, they support the removal of all Christian expressions and symbols from the institutions of government.

Franklin, by contrast, believed Christian prayers and expressions of faith should, not only be allowed, but encouraged in the public square. He obviously wanted government officials to be free to publicly pray for God’s blessing on the nation and His assistance in their civic duties.

Position #2

Franklin Believed Religious Liberty Should Extend to the Marketplace

Hillary and the DNC have supported lawsuits filed by homosexual activists against small business owners who politely declined to provide services for same-sex weddings because it violated their consciences and religious convictions. Instead of doing the polite and civil thing and going down the street to a business owner who had no scruples with their lifestyle, these activists have sought, by governmental force, to coerce these devout Christians to act against their consciences. This is known as “tyranny.”

Franklin, by contrast, believed religious liberty extended to every aspect of American life including the marketplace. This was borne out when the well-known Deist, Thomas Paine, sent him a manuscript copy of a book he had written challenging the idea of a providential God and other aspects of orthodox Christianity.

Franklin, who was a printer, refused to print the book and in very strong language urged Paine to not even allow anyone else to see it. He wrote;

I would advise you, therefore . . . to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion [Christianity], what would they be if without it (Hyatt, The Faith & Vision of Benjamin Franklin, 49).

Can you imagine the lawsuits from liberal groups like the ACLU if Franklin were alive today! It shows to what extent our modern politicians and bureaucrats are out of step with the Founders of this nation, even the most nonreligious ones.

Franklin was a strong advocate for religious liberty for personal reasons. His father and his grandfather on his mother’s side, who were devout Christians, fled religious tyranny in England and came to America to find the liberty to live out their Christian faith.

Franklin believed that this liberty should extend to every area of American life, including the marketplace. For this reason, he would be detested by Hillary Clinton and the DNC and he would vehemently oppose their liberal, socialist policies.

Position #3

Franklin Wanted Christianity Taught in the Public Schools

Hillary and the DNC agree with the purging of Christian prayers, expressions and symbols from the public schools. They did not protest even when a kindergartener in Florida was confronted by a teacher and told prayer was not allowed when she bowed her head to pray over her lunch. Franklin, on the other hand, believed the teaching of Christian values to be an absolute necessity for a stable society and he wanted Christianity taught in every public venue, including public schools.

In the fall of 1749 Franklin founded the “Public Academy of Philadelphia,” which was underwritten with public funds. In a letter to his revivalist friend, George Whitefield, Franklin informed him that that the students would learn “the value of public and private religion” and “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others.”

Franklin arranged for the different Christian churches to be equally represented on the board of trustees, choosing one Anglican, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, one Moravian, one Quaker, etc. to serve in this capacity. Showing his desire for a profound Christian influence in the school, he handpicked the first provost from the clergy, a Reverend William Smith.

To house the school, they were able to acquire a large building that had been built some years previous to accommodate the large crowds that had turned out to hear Whitefield preach in Philadelphia. Franklin negotiated the settlement for the building, which included an agreement that the school would “keep forever open in the building a large hall for occasional preachers, according to the original intention.”

The Academy flourished and today is the University of Pennsylvania.

Franklin wanted Christianity taught in public schools because he believed Christian virtue and morality to be absolutely necessary for a stable society and prosperous nation.

Franklin would be detested by Hillary and the DNC who are in favor of purging Christianity from the public schools because of their twisted perception of the First Amendment. In this regard, Hillary and the DNC are out of touch with even the most nonreligious of America’s Founders.

Conclusion

Franklin would staunchly defend the right of Christians to express their faith in the public arena. He would be appalled to hear that Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling was ordered to remove a Bible verse from her work station and then court-martialed when she declined to do so. He would be shocked at a federal judge ordering a high school band not to perform because one of their songs was a Christian hymn. Franklin would consider the government’s use of force against these people of faith a form of tyranny.

He would have no problem with expressions of faith in the public arena because he knew the truth of the First Amendment. He knew it was passed to keep Congress from ever establishing a national, state-supported church, and nothing more. That the First Amendment had nothing to do with keeping God out of government is obvious from the fact that the day after its passage, Franklin and his fellow Founders proclaimed a national day of prayer for the nation.

The gulf between Hillary Clinton and America’s nonreligious Founder is indeed wide. She and the DNC have bought the liberal lie that the First Amendment was written to secularize America by excluding expressions of faith from public institutions.

For these reasons Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s most nonreligious Founders, would be vehemently opposed to Hillary Clinton, the DNC and their vision for America.

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is an author, historian and ordained minister. This article was derived from his latest book, The Faith& Vision of Benjamin Franklin, available from Amazon and from his website at www.eddiehyatt.com/bookstore.html