American Citizens Being Set Up for Tyrannical Takeover?

The first part of Chris Pinto's radio program today is about a couple of the Psalms in relation to the increase in evil in the world, but the second half is about reports of army generals being chosen for their willingness to order shooting on American citizens, and reports that foreign soldiers have been training in America for years  -- obviously because THEY won't mind shooting American citizens.

I've heard all this before and it isn't going away.  There have also been rumors for a long time of concentration camps having been built for American citizens by FEMA all over the nation, as well as rumors of the possibility of martial law, with speculations about what might bring this about, and refusal to give up our guns under executive order is a major reason considered.  Rioting after a huge economic disaster is another.  Do all these gun control fanatics WANT to see American citizens killed or locked up, or are they merely dupes?

He is reporting on an article at Examiner.com, Shock Claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on US citizens.'

A Dr. Jim Garrow is the source of the information.

On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

So, who is the source?

Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.
Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

His bio on Amazon.com reads:

Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.

2/2/13: Video of interview with Garrow:

States Considering Laws to Nullify Obama's executive orders on guns

Chris Pinto's radio show today focuses on the actions by forty-seven states to nullify Obama's gun control orders.

Tangentially related, he also touches on the Rwanda genocide as a form of the Catholic Inquisition and recommends the film available at You Tube, In God's Name, about that slaughter.  The film refers to the murderers as "Christian" but it becomes clear that that means Catholic.  The point is that the people were not armed and could not defend themselves, and official Catholic doctrine is that nobody should be armed, and that's also the position of the UN.

Here's an article about the states' rebellion against Obama's gun measures, in a publication called The New American: States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control:

Numerous bills have already been introduced in state legislatures, for example, that would nullify unconstitutional federal gun control and even criminalize enforcement of such lawless restrictions. Texas, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, and other states are considering nullification legislation in the wake of Obama’s recent push to enact gun control by executive decree and proposals sent to Congress. Other states are expected to join soon, and many have already adopted laws in recent years protecting guns made and kept within their jurisdictions from federal regulations.

Update Jan 22:  Sheriffs Target Obama Gun Control, Vow to Resist.

As state governments and federal lawmakers who take their oath of office seriously work to stop the Obama administration’s proposed unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, a wave of county sheriffs all across the country is rising up to protect gun rights, too. Dozens of chief law enforcement officers have already pledged not to enforce new gun control, and many have even promised to actively prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal statutes within their jurisdictions. 

At Too Late for America Blog: Praying for the nation with nonChristians (that includes Catholics) is a sure way to keep us on the road to judgment

Church History: The Protestant Reformation and its Enemy the Vatican

This post is to be mostly a collection of links to talks and sermons about Roman Catholic efforts to destroy the Protestant Reformation.

1)  Here is a link to a talk by ex-Catholic-priest Richard Bennett,  Response of the Papacy to the Reformation, Part I which is a historical sketch of the Counter Reformation, or Roman efforts to undo the effects of the Reformation, principally through the Jesuits from the time of Jesuit founder Ignatius of Loyola to the present, including remarks on 

• The success of Jesuit education in turning minds toward Romanism; 
• The Oxford Movement in 19th century England to Romanize the Anglican Church;
• Dispensationalism, its Futurist eschatology & the Scofield Bible;
• Vatican Concordats with various nations including Germany through Hitler;
• Alliances with Islamic states;  a "call for peace" signed by "Christians" (acommonword.com);  Muslim-Catholic Forum;
• As a nation state Vatican makes civil laws and civil agreements about marriage, economics, property rights, laws about education, what can be on the radio; can shut down churches;  How Vatican increases through civil power.
• How Romanism fulfills scripture about the Harlot Church;
• How Dispensationalism blinds the Church to Romanism as the Antichrist

Bennett has the website Berean Beacon.org where you can find his personal testimony about his life as a priest and how he came to Christ.

2)  This talk is really Response of the Papacy to the Reformation, Part 2, but under the title Papal Rome, the European Union, Antichrist, Prophecy, Jesuits, Reformation, Martyrs  in which Michael De Semlyn of Richard Bennett's ministry gives the history of Rome's intention to recreate the Holy Roman Empire in Europe, showing among other things the Roman Catholic symbolism in the formation of the European Union.   [And here's a link where someone has very helpfully made a transcript of this talk with footnotes.]

• Papal Pronouncements on Europe:  8/31/2003 Pope John Paul II dedicated Europe to the Virgin Mary.
• "Last Sunday" (date is not given) the Pope "urged" that the final draft of the European Constitution recognize explicitly "the Christian roots" of Europe, by which of course he means only Roman Catholicism.  "...As described by the London Sunday Telegraph, 'The Pope is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his divine right, that of the new Holy Roman Emperor reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic'.  [July 21, 1991]

3)  Alan Cairns has a great Irish accent from his homeland ("faith" is "fee'yeth," "grace" is "gree-ess") but preached in South Carolina for many years before his retirement a few years ago.  He has in his sermons what I think must be the strongest Reformation emphasis I've ever heard.  You can find him at Sermon Audio.com as well as Richard Bennett,  Here's the Sermon Audio page of Posts on "Reformation" by Alan Cairns.

This sermon from 1995 The Reformation, A Battle to be Fought and Won Again is a powerful reminder of the truths of the Reformation and our need to continually be reminded of them, to study them and defend them.  He makes it clear that Inquisitional style persecutions of Protestants by Catholics are ongoing in predominantly Catholic countries, not something that ended centuries ago as we are so often misled into thinking.  There is a glitch in the audio around 6:36 where he has apparently begun discussing these persecutions but it is interrrupted.  How much is left out I don't know.

4)  In this sermon from 2004, The Failures of the Reformation, Cairns answers some familiar attempts to discredit the Reformers, often by Fundamentalists, and offers some thoughts of his own about how the Reformation stopped short of full success.  I found particularly interesting his remarks about the Anabaptists, who are often characterized as victims of the Reformers and generally get a positive press from today's Reformed teachers.  Cairns presents them in a less-than-positive light and claims they are NOT the forerunners of today's Baptists as is so often thought.

Side note:  One might suspect Jesuits behind the smear campaign but Cairns doesn't mention that possibility.  Fundamentalists with no sense of history are apparently sufficient for the task.

5)  [1/18] The Lord just led me to this one, A Historical Sketch of the Persecution of Christians (2006) by Joe Morecraft, and what a powerful sermon this is, on the persecutions of believers from the earliest days of the Church, so effectively preached that no matter how much I've already learned about these things, which is really quite a bit, I feel convicted more deeply than ever of my own cowardice and shrinking from the true call to martyrdom for Christ.  I thank the Lord that He seems to be leading me to deeper and deeper expressions of the life in Christ as I work on this blog post, and all I can do is pray for even a tenth of the courage of the martyrs down the centuries who died as true witnesses.

• AMERICAN CHRISTIAN COMPROMISERS.  Around 28:00 he mentions those "Christians" who are in favor with the world, who are invited to inaugurations etc., the compromisers as opposed to the true Christians Christ told us the world will hate.  Billy Graham who is a closet Romanist comes immiedately to mind of course.  But others might take note who are tempted in the same direction.
• TWO AMERICAN HERITAGES.  Around 29:08 he starts talking about two streams of American heritage, saying that Christians belong to the older one, the one that goes back to the original Puritan and Pilgrim settlers and NOT TO THE GENERATION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES OR "FOUNDERS" which he characterizes as UNITARIANS.  I hadn't heard this message before except from from Chris Pinto.   Morecraft says Teach your children to be patriotic toward that older heritage and to shun the newer heritage!  Interesting!  This must be a stream of preaching I've somehow just never encountered before. 

Cairns and Morecraft are both Presbyterians and such powerful preachers of the truth I could be persuaded to become a Presbyterian, a REAL Presbyterian, not like that liberal Presbyterian USA church I once belonged to.  Why didn't I discover them earlier?  I probably didn't deserve to, that's the most likely reason, because I AM a weak cowardly Christian.  He who has shall receive more...   Every little thing we do in the right direction will move us further along that path.  Every little dying to self we do will give us the ability to die more.  I pray for the strengthening of the Church, and if it be the Lord's will that there might still be revival, that Christians who are giving in to compromises in so many many ways might see their error and repent, that so many who still live in complete darkness might see the great Light and be saved.  IT CAN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CHURCH LEARNS TO DIE, and that can start with recognizing and repenting of our sins, and our sins of compromising with the world are MAJOR these days.

6)  Here's a talk that's just chock full of information that's new to me: History of the Conflict in Ireland by Ivan Foster.   It's a very balanced presentation of the strife in Ireland which covers the effects of deceitful machinations by Romanists plus the neglect and indifference of apostate and ecumenized Protestants both English and Irish.

From the Sermon Audio page on Ivan Foster:

Mr. Foster, a former member of Omagh District Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly, believes it is essential for Christians to actively strive for the preservation of civil and religious liberty. Such striving must be done in the knowledge that only by national repentance and a return to God and Biblical Protestantism can Ulster be saved. 

=============

POST UNDER CONSTRUCTION

{I'm still working on this post and have already rearranged and added to the material above, and expect to do more as I continue to study this topic.  I hope I will be forgiven for continuing to work on this after it's published.}   

The Popes and the Reformation -- Alan Cairns (1998)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6144

The Counter-Reformation -- Alan Cairns (1997)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6030

The Anabaptist Reformation - Alan Cairns (2007)

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10210718235710

One Bible, One Gospel - Alan Cairns (2002)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21702133347
This is Cairns' answer to Dispensationalism

One Bible, One Gospel, Part 2 - Alan Cairns
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2240222408

Why It Took Chris Pinto to Make The Threat of Romanism Clear to Me

Listening for the second time to a talk on Dispensationalism I noted again the by-now-familiar fact that the Futurist interpretation of prophecy was originally introduced by a Jesuit in the effort to get the papacy out from under the traditional Protestant label of Antichrist, by moving all the scripture references to the Antichrist to the unfulfilled future.  Hearing this again it hit me how much I HAD known about Catholicism's influence in so many ways before I ever heard of Chris Pinto, had heard many of the pertinent facts from Reformed teachers over the years, so I had to ask myself why what Chris Pinto had to say hit me as so new and revelatory.   

Well, nobody else in my experience ever drew the right conclusion from all these separate facts about Romanist perfidies -- that their work never stopped but is being pursued with as much determination now as it ever was in the past. 

A Jesuit invented Futurism and somehow a huge swath of the Protestant churches have become futurists!  And Dispensationalists, which is the theology behind futurism, the biggest theological movement in the churches today.  How clever can they be?  They also either invented or at least promoted Arminianism, which Augustus Toplady back in the 18th Century called "The Road to Rome," also saying that what has come to be called Calvinism is really simply the gospel itself.  But Arminianism is now very aggressively promoted against Calvinism even by some who are otherwise strong opponents of Catholicism -- such as Dave Hunt and T A  McMahon.

Pinto drew the necessary CONCLUSIONS from the many facts that had been floating around in my head, that for some reason nobody else who noted the same facts had drawn, that Catholicism is every bit as much the Antichrist at work in the world today as it ever was, still working to undermine theology, to instigate violence against Protestants where possible (using complex lies to cover their tracks), and still aims to rise to world prominence again where it can destroy its enemies through its Inquisition. 

It was noted in passing in the talk on Dispensationalism that it was a Jesuit who invented Futurism to defend the Pope and the speaker even paused to emphasize it, saying "ponder that," but said no more about it.   Always the impression is given that whatever Romanism has done is somehow past and over with or not really effective or whatever, so we don't have to give it too much thought.  But Pinto has made it clear that it's aggressively ongoing, has already undermined Protestantism both in the churches and the culture in ways we don't normally recognize as the doings of Rome, and is continuing to work with the same objectives as ever.  In other words it's still an important threat to the true Church as of RIGHT NOW and most of us are blind to it.

Up to about a century ago there were strong voices in the Protestant Churches continuing to keep the issues alive and keep Catholicism on the hot seat, but all that has died out, or at least died down to a few barely warm embers over the last century.  I was reading in the online book The History of Protestantism by J A Wylie and noticed that he held an office called Lecturer on Popery!  In a Protestant Institute.  That's what we need NOW.

Lessons of 2012

Saw a blog that asks the question what God taught us over the last year, that I thought at least for myself might make a better post here than an answer there.  The emphasis there was on personal lessons learned and I have a few of those, but mostly last year was interesting for me because of knowledge I acquired that I think important in relation to my blogs here in general, knowledge I wish the Church at large would take to heart.

I mention one personal lesson I'm still learning in the next section, but the one at the top of my list is learning to curb my temper.  I may finally have learned it after blowing up at a friend in such a way that I may have irreparably damaged the relationship.  Time will tell.  Something provokes me, and I do get provoked in a strongly physical way, start shaking sometimes, it even feels like a physical need to yell, but that's the thing I need to learn not to do.  It can happen over an opinion or over my five-year-old grandson's rambunctious misbehavior.  I shouted so ferociously at him to stop doing something recently that I scared the wits out of the little guy and he burst into tears.  He also scrambled so fast to undo what I'd yelled at him to stop doing -- turning off a particular light (he wanted to make the room completely dark and wasn't taking No for an answer until then) -- that I was amazed.  That never happened before but it made me aware I really do have an effect.  I'm of two minds about that, I'm sorry I upset him so, yelling at the top of my lungs isn't the right way to discipline a child, but I'm really really glad he isn't the total deaf ear to adult disapproval I'd come to think he is.  He was so upset I had to give him a big hug and tell him I love him -- also thanked him for turning the light back on -- and we made up and that was nice, but I've known for a long time I need a much better way of responding to such provocations.

So that's Number One on the personal side of the year's lessons.  There were a number of similar incidents over the last year.  I think God finally got MY attention. 

But I'm just as impressed with general knowledge I picked up over the year, one major area being about the Catholic Church and the Jesuits, another about the American founding and documents.  Both of these I learned about from Chris Pinto's ministry.  He also contributed very useful information that fits into my Bible Hoax blog.

The other major event of the year was my promotion of Jonathan Cahn's book The Harbinger in over a hundred posts here, including attempts to defend it against some very unfair attacks by critics.   The book is THE confirmation of the fact that the nation is under God's judgment that so many Christians seem to be oblivious to.  I learned some new things about the state of the nation and about theology through that experience, and about divisions among Christians.   All things I'm continuing to learn about.

Then with the eruption of evil in the senseless murders of children at Sandy Hook and the immediate predictable irrational knee-jerk misdiagnosis of the problem as the possession of guns by anybody and everybody, along with aggressive efforts to do away with them, threats against the civil order that many Christians have been watching build up for many years got that much closer and more sinister.

There's a sketch, now for some detail.

Enter Chris Pinto

It's only been maybe a year and a half that I've even been aware of Chris Pinto, having first discovered him through his film Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers at You Tube, which started the process of disabusing me of any lingering ideas I had about the Christian foundations of America.  Pinto might not be happy to be promoted by the likes of me, who knows, but for me his work has been a Godsend.

I've actually had someone accuse me of taking *everything* Chris Pinto says about anything as gospel truth, someone in a discernment ministry as a matter of fact.  Of course such an accusation is pretty depressing.  I don't take anything ANYONE says as gospel truth.  But it certainly seems indisputable that for me he's been the single source of more mind-blowing knowledge of important things over the last year than anything or anyone else. 

I have to add here one of those personal lessons learned, that over the last year I've had the unsettling experience of getting to know some fairly well known people in various ministries and finding that it strongly affects how I write -- or at least I have to fight letting it affect how I write.  It's not easy to write something that strongly disagrees with someone whose ministry you appreciate, someone you've also come to know, however slightly, through email exchanges.  I wouldn't have guessed it could be so hard.  The only way I'm able to keep my mind free is not to have any contacts with anybody, sad to say.  That can't be the best solution, so this is a lesson I'm still learning.

Anyway, I've been following Chris Pinto's ministry more closely than just about any others because he happens to have his finger on the pulse of some information I consider to be of great importance to the Christian life that is still mostly new to me.  He has convinced me of these things BY HIS EVIDENCE -- not by who he is or anything he's said about anything else -- and it's information I'd like to disseminate to other believers as far as I'm able because I'm so coninced of its importance to the Church.  

Chris Pinto's Revelations about the American Founders

From Pinto I got EVIDENCE about the attitudes of SOME of America's founders, the Big Five I've come to call them -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine -- that make it painfully clear that they were not only not Christians but have to be called "antichrists" by the BIBLICAL definition, that is, by the fact that they denied that Christ is God who became a man, or "came in the flesh" as scripture puts it. 

Before I knew about Pinto I was aware that Jefferson denied all the supernatural elements of the Bible and that Adams was a Unitarian, but I hadn't really followed up on the implications of that knowledge, thinking that at least they promoted Christian principles and that Christian principles underlie the institutions they helped to form.  As my last post shows, I now know that to be false.  While a case can be made for Biblical law and morality in the formation of the nation, morality is not in itself a Christian principle.  I knew little about the other three founders except that I was aware of a strong push to characterize Washington as a Christian, which is now also debunked in my mind.  I had tried to rationalize away the evidence of the Treaty of Tripoli that denies that America is a Christian nation.  In all this I was probably mostly following the ministries such as Wallbuilders that make America out to be Christian in a blanket way that glosses over contrary evidence.

There are people who have heard the kind of evidence Pinto presents and still insist on the Christian character of these men, which I find very puzzling, since once you know that they are in print denying the Deity of Christ and ridiculing the virgin birth there isn't any rational way to continue in such a belief.  I have to think that some people just have a problem grasping the implications of the evidence.

It also always has to be said that although these particular founders were not Christian, the nation was originally settled by true Christians whose influence and institutions were clearly Christian, and the vast majority of even the founding generation and the population of the nation at large, were true Christians as well.  The sad thing is that our founding documents reflect the beliefs of the Rationalist minority rather than the Christian majority, and this was recognized by many early on only for some reason today's Christians have been denied that knowledge.

Pinto's Revelations About Romanism

I credit Pinto above all with making me aware of the continuing efforts of the Roman Church to undermine true Christianity -- efforts that are ongoing, present and active rather than long since past and over with, and especially his revelations about the Jesuits -- their historical attacks on governments, national leaders, attempts through education to promote Romanism and discredit Protestantism and disseminate ideas destructive of Protestant culture, and their ultimate aim of reinstituting the Inquisition.

Yes, I already thought of the Roman Church as an Antichrist system, as did the Protestant Reformers; I expected it to have a big role to play in the unfolding of the very last days.  Such developments as the ecumenical project of the 90s, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, distressed me greatly, partly because of some of the big name evangelicals who supported it I'd previously admired, and I applauded those such as John MacArthur who vigorously opposed it.  I also read up on the Marian apparitions which seem to have increased in the last century and are most certainly demonic in origin and have to have something to do with the coming together of the global religion we're all anticipating. 

I also knew the Jesuits were known for a distinctive brand of sophistic thinking and that they had been soundly trounced by Blaise Pascal, but I thought of that as an episode in the distant past.

But after hearing some of Chris Pinto's research all that suddenly appeared to me as the tiny tip of an enormous iceberg, the hidden part of which was startling in its implications of ONGOING efforts to destroy Protestantism, reverse the Reformation, even bring back the Inquisition, all now to my mind present realities and not merely past history or future possibilities, realities that are on the very verge of succeeding in their ultimate aims, realities that explain phenomena I'd been attributing to other causes -- such as the rapid deterioration of American morality over the last half century.  It's like you've been contemplating world events in a great gray shifting fog in which images appear and disappear and reappear, pondering scripture and wondering if the Antichrist is soon to be revealed, watching in particular the odd meteoric rise in popularity of Islam in the last decade since 9/11 and the ongoing disturbances in the Middle East surrounding Israel, when all of a sudden the fog clears and the Pope's visage takes shape before your eyes with startling clarity.  Wow, it's Romanism after all!  And bigger and more ferocious than you could ever have imagined.

It's deeply distressing to me to discover the looming extent of the influence of Romanism in this way, at a point when it's succeeded so well at making a comeback after one might have thought the Reformation had defanged it effectively forever and consigned the Inquisition to the dead medieval past, now to discover it's never given up its ambition to rule the world and do away with enemies and "heretics," yet being taken by so many Christians as just another Christian denomination.   We needed to know all this YEARS ago.  Now it seems it could be too late.

Historical Attempts to MAKE the Constitution Christian, proving that it is not and never was a Christian document

I hope Chris Pinto doesn't mind if I quote a whole article of his from his website (below), including the URL of course. 

He's many times on his radio show mentioned the attempt by some to introduce a Christian Preamble to the Constitution, and this article is where he documents various attempts of that sort made over the period from the Civil War to 1910 and then another attempt in 1947. 

Such efforts to introduce Christian principles into the Constitution ought to make it clear that the nation was NOT founded on such principles as so many have been claiming for some time.  The documents that form the law of the nation are NOT Christian.

There are quotes easily enough available from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine to demonstrate not only their NONChristian beliefs but frankly ANTIChristian beliefs as they outright deny the Deity of Jesus Christ and ridicule such basic Christian doctrines as the supernatural conception of Christ by a virgin.   For anyone to go on presenting any of these men as Christians after knowing this about their beliefs involves either great delusion or an attempt to deceive.

George Washington carefully kept his beliefs to himself, but it is known that he refused to take Communion at his church during his Presidency, and the pastor of that church specifically called him a "Deist."  As I've mentioned here before, it's not right to call him or the others Deists by today's understanding of the term, because they did believe in prayer and God's Providence, but all five of them appear to have denied the most basic Christian principles.  There is some reason to believe that Washington may have converted to Romanism on his death bed which would imply he accepted the deity of Christ at least at that time, but Romanism was not considered to be Christian then and shouldn't be now either.

There is a great deal of confusion over the fact that these men can sound very "Christian" at times in their statements that favor Christian morality and their references to "God," as in "Nature's God," but this is deceptive. 

It ought to be a red flag to anyone who understands even a little about Masonry that the Declaration of Independence was written on a Masonic lambskin apron.  How often are we given that bit of factual information?   It ought to give us a clue as to what "God" was invoked in that document under the phrase "Nature's God."

Christians don't balk at that phrase because it's not in any obvious way inconsistent with Biblical views of God, and you could find some Biblical support for it if you were determined to, but in the context of the making of the founding documents of America, in the context of the philosophical frame of mind of at least the main names involved in that enterprise, it is NOT a Biblical concept at all.  In fact it identifies God as part of Nature rather than as the transcendant Creator God of the Bible.  Pinto says the phrase was specifically chosen to CONTRADICT the Biblical understanding of God, though I don't have access right now to his source for that.  In any case it's not hard to find that the phrase "Nature's God" was associated with DEISM and not with Christianity.  Wikipedia's entry on that phrase says flatly that it's Deist, and here's a quote from another article on the subject:

"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.[21]

Get the phrase "a civil religion" for which the Declaration of Independence is said to lay the foundation, NOT Christianity.  It's always sounded good even to Christians that "all religious beliefs were respected" in America, but when the fog of delusion that surrounds this concept clears for a moment, can't we see that this is nothing else than supporting the idolatrous religions of the world as if they are equal to the true religion, and violating the commandment to "have no other gods before Me?"  It's right to tolerate other beliefs, but our great error is that we've put them on an equal footing with Christianity and given them powers they should never have been allowed to have if the nation really was in any sense Christian.  What have we been thinking?  Why hasn't this FACT been screamed from pulpits so that it couldn't have been missed, instead of treated as righteous?  And "moral conduct" is what ALL religions promote, why is that made the foundation of anything American and worse than that, why is it mistaken for something CHRISTIAN?  Even if it's based on the Bible it is NOT Christianity.  Yet what have Christians done with all this?  We thank God for our freedom to worship in this nation as if that's all that matters, not taking note of the fact that every idolatrous, satanic and evil religion is likewise given freedom which is an affront to God and can only promote the release of demonic powers against Christians in the end, which is already curtailing OUR freedoms and may soon bring them to a halt.  What HAVE we been thinking?

Another clue to the NONChristian nature of our founding documents is that whether or not to include references to God in the Constitution was debated in Congress and decided AGAINST. 

There is also the controversial Treaty of Tripoli which flatly states that America is not a Christian nation.  This is controversial but I believe Pinto has shown that it was clearly intentional and reflected the anti-Christian beliefs of Washington and Adams who had most to do with it.

And here's Pinto's article on later attempts to MAKE the Constitution Christian, which by itself ought to demonstrate that it was NOT Christian at its inception:

CHRISTIAN PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
Friday, April 1, 2011 at 11:30AM Chris Pinto

Once one gets away from the popular propaganda about the United States being founded as a “Christian nation,” and looks to the real history, the pieces of the puzzle make much more sense.

In truth, Christians have been lifting up a shout against our “God-less” and “Christ-less” governing documents since they were first written. In 1845 a pastor by the name of Rev. D.X. Junkin published the following against the oath taken by an American President sworn into office:

The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mohammedan as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions.” (Source: Proceedings of the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association, p.iii)

The above quote is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Revolutionaries, who began their declaration with “We the People” as if to suggest that they represented the interests of the greater body of Americans. In reality, as we see so often today, they did not represent “the People,” but rather their own minority opinion. We must note that this did not begin with Carter, Clinton, Obama and Pelosi – it began with Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

In the 19th century, T.P. Stevenson, the Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution wrote:

“That there is no acknowledgement of God or of the Christian religion in the Constitution of the United States, has been deplored by many devout and thoughtful men ever since that otherwise admirable political instrument was framed.” (Ibid, p.iii)

During the Civil War Era, the National Reform Association launched an effort to re-write the Preamble to the Constitution because it was believed that the war was God’s punishment on the country for leaving God out of the Constitution. In 1863, we read the following which had been drafted by Mr. John Alexander of Philadelphia:

“In this, the day of our national calamity, it becomes us to inquire what the Lord would have us to do ... In the earlier struggles of the people for national independence, the frequent acknowledgement of God and his authority ... gave evidence of a religious public sentiment in the nation ....But alas for human frailty and ingratitude! Instead of going on to promote more and more the glory of God and the rights of man, a terrible, and ... fatal backward step was taken in adopting that otherwise noble instrument (i.e. the Constitution) without any direct recognition of God or his authority and with a toleration of human slavery ... From that day the nation has been demoralized by the promulgation of an instrument as the paramount law of the land, which is far beneath the Christian sentiment of the nation .... And now God has arisen in His anger and is vindicating His own glory and the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Therefore His just judgments are upon us as a nation, and we must repent and forsake our national sins, or be destroyed.”(Ibid, p.iv)

It is quite interesting that the Christians of America recognized the wickedness of the slave trade in this country. Kidnapping men, women and children from their own countries and then selling them into demoralizing circumstances stood contrary to the commandments of God, and the mercy of Jesus Christ. It was for the cause of slavery that the children of Israel themselves became slaves in ancient Babylon. Because they refused to let their slaves free, God punished them severely (Jeremiah 34:14-17). It seems that believers in America at that time had an understanding of this. Alexander went on to say:

“We regard the Emancipation Proclamation of the President and his recommendation to purge the Constitution of Slavery as among the most hopeful signs of the times. But we regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting all acknowledgement of them in our Constitution, as the crowning, original sin of the nation, and slavery as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore the most important step remains yet to be taken, -- to amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the authority of His law ...” (Ibid, pp. iv, v)

Alexander went on to say,

“True, it may be said that under our present excellent Constitution we have enjoyed great prosperity ... But do we not know that God is long- suffering and slow to wrath ... Does not every one see that God is displeased with us as a nation, and has been provoked to bring upon us this terrible calamity?”

All this having been said, the following amended Preamble for the Constitution was set forth by Alexander and his committee:

“We, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all] in order to form a more perfect union ... do ordain this Constitution ...” (Ibid, p.v)

As we know, the attempt at implementing this Preamble in 1863 proved unsuccessful, but was far from the end of the issue. In the book, “Separation of Church and State” by authors Johnson and Yost, we read the following:

“From time to time efforts have been made to put what has been termed ‘God into our Federal Constitution.’ An Amendment was proposed to that effect in 1844. Again in 1865 President Lincoln had a delegation of ministers representing a number of different denominations call upon him in a similar effort. The National Reform Association has been instrumental in spearheading such attempts on various occasions. In an effort to recognize the Christian religion and Jesus Christ as its author, religious amendments were introduced in Congress in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1908, 1909, and in 1910."

It appears that no attempts have been made since then until July 15, 1947, when in the House of Representatives, Representative Louis E. Graham of Pennsylvania proposed that the United States acknowledge Jesus Christ as Saviour and King by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On July 18 of the same year, Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas proposed a similar amendment. These two resolutions, House Joint Resolution 239 and Senate Joint Resolution 150, introduced in the Eightieth Congress, are identical and read as follows:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America ... The Preamble of this Constitution shall hereafter Read: ‘We, the People of the United States, DEVOUTLY RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY AND LAW OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR AND KING OF NATIONS, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ...” etc. (Source: Separation of Church and State in the United States, by Alvin W. Johnson, Frank H. Yost)

The importance of showing this information to a modern Christian audience is to demonstrate that the United States, its Constitution, and original government was not a “Christian” entity as is often portrayed by certain teachers in our churches. The history as presented by these men can only be called “propaganda” designed for some other purpose, than giving an accurate portrait of America’s past. It is provable beyond any doubt that Bible believers in this country have objected to the pagan, deist, infidel Revolutionaries and their God-less government from the beginning.

Recognizing that false histories have been used to foment some of the most horrid and bloodthirsty movements in recent memory (Nazism, Communism, etc.), as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must be on the alert, and do our diligence to keep watch, and be certain to “prove all things” as the Lord has commanded us to do. For if we allow ourselves to be deceived, as the serpent beguiled Eve with his craftiness, will we not be without excuse before God? Have we not been warned? If we shut out the voices of the past, and those sober witnesses who have cried out, will we not be all the more guilty in the sight of heaven? Tyrants, wolves, and wicked men of every stripe have endeavored to manipulate the Church of Christ for their own evil purposes. Our responsibility is to maintain holiness and to walk in the fear of God, and resist these deceivers, lest we allow the churches in our nation to be used for a worldly and diabolical end.    [end Pinto quote.  My boldings]