Conference yukon::christian_v7

	And Dole will convert to pro-choice. He may not really feel that way,
but he will do it to try and win the election. He needs the women vote. He
needs the young vote. This is one way he could sway some of those votes. 

    Make that 334 to 447.
    
    See, you can "make a difference", and it is noticed. At least by me
    anyways. 8-)
    
    Bob

    thanks for the info!

    
    
    Also in mid-sept congress is going to try to overthrow the Clinton
    veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. We would need 2/3 of the 
    congress to vote for the ban and we don't have that number yet.
    
    Call your senators and state rep and tell them how you want them
    to vote.
    
    Sue

    
    Hi Folks,
    
    Since the platform protecting life is secure maybe this topic can
    expand to a different discussion and serve a different purpose.
    
    What is our (Christians') basis for wanting a pro-life plank in the 
    platform?
    
    jeff

>    What is our (Christians') basis for wanting a pro-life plank in the 
>    platform?

	Well, I don't purport to speak for *all* Christians...
My view is that innocent human life must be protected; that is,
no human being has the right to deliberately kill another human being,
except as a last resort to defend against a violent attack, or to
carry out the government-imposed death penalty against someone convicted
of a capital crime (murder, rape, kidnapping).
 
 	The pro-life plank in the Republican platform is a principled
stand for what is right, based not only upon our own *personal* ethical
sensibilities, but more cogently upon the *public* good, powerfully asserted
by our nation's founding principles, contained in its founding document, the
Declaration of Independence.  First and foremost is the "self-evident"
"truth" that *all* human beings "are endowed by their Creator" with the
"right" to "life".
 
 	To deny the status of personhood to *any* class of human being
is to undermine any legitimate basis for our continued existence as a nation.
We must either return to our founding principles as a nation, or ultimately
destroy each other in a futile and meaningless grab for "rights" (power).

Subject: Defending the Declaration
   From: Scott.S.Bertilson-1@tc.umn.edu

    The Convention is over.  The Alan Keyes for President '96 campaign is 
over.  The influence of Dr. Keyes message is undeniable, as we see the
wonderful accomplishments of a pro-life uncompromised platform and a
pro-life and pro-racial reconciliation V.P.  But of course it is
disappointing that the full message of Alan Keyes is not being
expressed to the American people through our Party.
    I appeal to those of you who may be planning to drop off the
mailing list soon to stick it out longer and then join the Friends of
the Declaration list when it gets running.
    The reason I say this is that I believe it is not enough for us to
seek to put a principled leader in political office.  Even if Dr.
Keyes had ascended to national leadership and had been able to win
people to his Declaration ideas, it would not have been enough to
renew America.
    It seems to me that the whole point of Dr. Keyes message is to say
that the key to restoring America is restoring the personal
self-government of each American under God's authority.  Those who
plan to do nothing until Keyes runs again are putting their faith in
the civil government rather than self-government.
     Therefore I urge you to join and support the Declaration 
Foundation and avail yourself of the educational materials which
will be published.  It is not enough to depend on one man - Alan Keyes
- to defend the integrity of our founding fathers and the principles
which formed our nation.  Our country will only be restored when those
principles are common knowledge through diligent study.
    To whet your appetite we are posting a portion of the author's
introduction from Defending the Declaration by Dr. Gary Amos.  This
book has been heartily endorsed by Dr. Keyes and is the first the
Foundation hopes to republish with a forward by Dr. Keyes.  Another
segment will follow tomorrow.  [This posting does *not* constitute
an endorsement - RJS]

                                               Scott and Carol
                                               Bertilson

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I Wrote This Book

 I care a great deal about America for many reasons.
But at one time I did not. A child of the '60s, the drug
culture, and the anti-war mood of the nation, I remember being
ashamed of America. Converted to Christianity in 1971, I became
a pacifist and conscientious objector. But studying the Bible
changed my thinking about many things, including pacifism. It
soon changed my thinking about America.

 I went to college to become a preacher but, after a
prayer experience, decided to study both theology and law. I
studied Old and New Testament theology, several years of New
Testament Greek, Biblical interpretation, and a whole range of
other subjects dealing with Christianity and the Bible. I was
particularly interested in church history -- where the church
had obeyed God through the centuries and where it had failed. No
longer being anti-American, I was interested as well in the
impact of the Bible and Christianity on the history of America.

 While  I was studying the Bible and theology, I was
also studying early American history as part of my prelaw
degree. I read book after book in which authors wrote about
people, ideas, and events, saying that their ideas were not
Christian. Yet, I was learning in my Bible classes and theology
studies that some of those very ideas were Christian. By 1977 I
was frustrated with the number of Christian ideas that were
being traced to non-Christian sources. It was an unsettling
experience.

 I did not doubt some things then. From numerous
history books I learned that John Locke was a deist; that most
of the founding fathers were deists; that Jefferson copied Locke
when writing the Declaration, so the Declaration was deistic. In
short, I learned that America was born a deistic rather than a
Christian nation. I knew Perry Miller and certain other
historians had misread the Puritans in important ways. But the
Puritans came before

1776. I had no reason to doubt that Jefferson and the
Revolutionary fathers were deists and that their principles
were not Christian.

 In 1980 I was asked to do some research that
required me to read John Locke (1632-1704). Here was a man who
was supposed to be a deist. He was someone who rejected the God
of the Bible; who did not believe in Jesus Christ; and who
rejected prayer, miracles, and the inspiration and authority of
the Scriptures. I found most of Locke's books in the library,
sat down, and began to read.

 I could not believe my eyes. In page after page,
Locke confessed Christ, the Bible, miracles, and many other
elements of orthodox Christianity. And it was all very clear. He
was not using vague words or hard-to-understand sayings. At
first I was angry. I felt like I had been tricked or robbed. I
had been told by some of the best and brightest that Locke was a
deist who rejected Christianity and the Bible. I had been lied
to. And Locke had been lied about.

 I had a history degree and had read many books about
John Locke. But I had never read Locke's own writings. And
everything I had learned about him was wrong. I kept on reading,
being careful to note those places where Locke agreed with the
Bible, particularly with the writings of the Apostle Paul. I
found that as Perry Miller had misread the Puritans because
Miller had not read the Apostle Paul in the New Testament,
particularly Romans 1 and 2, other historians had misread Locke
because they did not know when Locke was following the Apostle
Paul, whom Locke often quoted. One cannot understand John Locke
without reading Paul, and one cannot understand Paul without a
thorough knowledge of the book of Romans in the New Testament.

 I made up my mind that I would read the founders for
myself to see who else had been misrepresented. That was 1980.
By 1984 I had read Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Witherspoon,
Adams, Marshall, and a host of others. This was all taking place
during an intensive study of the impact of Christianity on the
growth and development of European law, particularly the English
common law. By 1983 I had found that every key term in the
Declaration of Independence had its roots in the Bible,
Christian theology, the Western Christian intellectual
tradition, medieval Christianity, Christian political theory,
and the Christian influence on the six-hundred-year development
of the English common law. Knowing it and proving it are two
different things. So in 1983, when I made up my mind to do a
book on the relationship of the Bible and Christianity to the
Declaration of Independence, I began the research leading to
this book.

 At first, I intended to show how the average person
on the street has a seriously wrong view of the American
Revolution, the founding fathers, the Declaration of
Independence, and how Christianity fit into that whole picture.
I also intended to show how historians generally have
misunderstood the Declaration in certain ways because most of
them are trained historians, not trained theologians or
lawyers. Since the Declaration is a legal document of
theological significance, one needs to know theology and law as
well as history to do justice to the relationship between
Christianity and the Declaration.

(Used by permission of the author.)

    re: -1
    
    Excellent read!  Thanks!
    
    					Tony

RE:		<<< Note 911.7 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>
	-< what did the Declaration's authors believe? >-

        Could you post some of the quotes by Locke and any of our nation's
        Founders that show that they were indeed Christians?  I am
        particularly interested in quotes by the likes of Franklin,
        Jefferson, and Madisom, to whom the non-Christian camp appeals to
        assert their position that the united States of America was not
        founded as a Christian nation, or from Christian theology.  This
        would be potent ammunition against those that argue that we were
        not founded as a Christion nation.

        It is not enough to provide quotes concerning Christian morality,
        thou shalt not murder, steal, philander, lie, covet, etc, as those
        are values even the deists, humanists, and aetheists find
        agreeable.  The important quotes would be ones holding the Bible as
        inerrant, Christ as personal Saviour, Christ as God manifest in the
        flesh, honoring God's Name and His Sabbath, eschewing idolatry,
        etc. These are the some of the more important things that
        distinguish Christianity from mere Deism.

	God's peace,
		TonyC

    Tony,
    
    If any such quotes happen to fall into my hands, then I will be glad to
    post them here.  What I've posted is a foreword from a book.  I don't
    particularly wish to promote the book, and I certainly won't get any
    kickbacks or commissions for this posting.  However, if the topic of
    the book interests you sufficiently, you may want to browse a copy.
    Stay tuned for part two of two.
    
    						Shalom,
    						Bob Sampson

Subject: Defending the Declaration-2nd installment
   From: Scott.S.Bertilson-1@tc.umn.edu

The Christian Attack on the Declaration

 About that time, a group of Christian historians
published a book on Christianity and the founding of America
called Search For "Christian" America (1983). I was hoping that
their book would make mine unnecessary. But when I read the book
in 1984 I was horrified. Not only did these Christian writers
take the same "secular" approach of non-Christian writers, they
were almost vindictive in their charge that Christianity had
little or nothing to do with the American Revolution.

 Of all the books I had read on the subject, theirs
was the most troubling. Even a few "secular" historians had
admitted that Christianity and Christian ideas had been
important in the American Revolution and the Declaration, though
in a limited way. But these Christian historians denied even the
most obvious Christian ideas and influences.

 It is understandable for a historian to overlook,
fail to detect, or mischaracterize Christian ideas or Biblical
sources if the historian is inwardly opposed to Christianity, or
does not take seriously the impact of the Bible and Christianity
on history, or has not spent time mastering Biblical materials.
It is ironic -- tragic -- that Christian writers would have a
poorer grasp of the impact of the Bible and Christianity on
history than would "secular"  historians.

 Search For "Christian" America has been widely
received by evangelical readers. It has even been used as proof
of America's "secular" roots by a leading humanist magazine in
its ongoing diatribe against Christian involvement in American
public life. So I have found it necessary in some ways to write
this book as a direct response, with a major focus on an
evangelical audience.

 Theirs was not the only "Christian" attack on the
Declaration, however. Years earlier, Gregg Singer had written an
influential history of early America that trashed the
Declaration of Independence as anti-Christian and deistic.
Others called it a political propaganda tract of no legal or
political significance. For many Christian writers the
Declaration became an embarrassment.

 That did not stop some of them from longing to be
able to say that America had always been a Christian nation.
They could see the clear influence of Christianity in the
Constitution. And they could see the Christian legacy in the
colonies from the early days to independence. But standing
between the colonies and the Constitution was the Declaration of
Independence, the one shameful blot on America's Christian law
tradition.

 These Christian intellectuals could not respect the
Declaration. But they could not ignore it either, especially
since it was the document that gave birth to the United States
as a nation. In their argument for America's Christian past, the
Declaration was the Achilles' heel. For better or for worse, the
Declaration of Independence was somehow what America was all
about, and it was not about Christianity.

 To get Christian intellectuals to agree on anything
is rare. But Christian scholars from the left, right, and center
generally agree that the Declaration was deistic and
non-Christian or anti-Christian. It offended their faith, and
more importantly, it offended God. Their duty, then, was to
blast the Declaration, to ensure that ordinary Christians would
not be deceived into thinking that it had anything good to say.
And in this they have been sadly mistaken.

 Their view of the Declaration dominates almost every
Christian seminary and college in America. It has fueled a
growing sense of shame and guilt about America that has spread
among Christian young people in the past few years. It gives a
reason -- a wrong one -- for anti-American activism among some
Christian political and social organizations.

 In other words, the attacks on the Declaration are
not only mis-guided, they are destructive. Hence the title --
Defending The Declaration. Christians need to know that the
Declaration is not against the Bible and Christianity. Rather,
its whole structure and its terms have direct historical links
to the Bible and Christian theology. The Declaration is not some
deep "secular" ditch between the Christianity of the colonies
and the Christian ideas in the U.S. Constitution.

 My earlier purposes for writing remain: The first is
to clear up the wrong views of the Declaration and Revolution
generally shared by average Americans. The second is to take
issue with how the experts as a whole have viewed the impact of
Christianity and the Bible on the American Revolution and the
Declaration of Independence.

(by permission of the Author - Dr. Gary Amos)