I highly recommend this book:
On January 17, 1776, one week after Thomas Paine published his incendiary pamphlet Common Sense, Connecticut minister Samuel Sherwood preached an equally patriotic sermon. “God Almighty, with all the powers of heaven, are on our side,” Sherwood said, voicing a sacred justification for war that Americans would invoke repeatedly throughout the struggle for independence.
In Sacred Scripture, Sacred War, James Byrd offers the first comprehensive analysis of how American revolutionaries defended their patriotic convictions through scripture. Byrd shows that the Bible was a key text of the American Revolution. Indeed, many colonists saw the Bible as primarily a book about war. They viewed God as not merely sanctioning violence but actively participating in combat, playing a decisive role on the battlefield. When war came, preachers and patriots alike turned to scripture not only for solace but for exhortations to fight. Such scripture helped amateur soldiers overcome their natural aversion to killing, conferred on those who died for the Revolution the halo of martyrdom, and gave Americans a sense of the divine providence of their cause. Many histories of the Revolution have noted the connection between religion and war, but Sacred Scripture, Sacred War is the first to provide a detailed analysis of specific biblical texts and how they were used, especially in making the patriotic case for war. Combing through more than 500 wartime sources, which include more than 17,000 biblical citations, Byrd shows precisely how the Bible shaped American war, and how war in turn shaped Americans’ view of the Bible.
Brilliantly researched and cogently argued, Sacred Scripture, Sacred War sheds new light on the American Revolution.
David DeGerolamo
There are some who claim that after this war we almost immediately sold our soul back to Britain, if this is true does it change our thinking about this war and war in general at all?
I am what is called in the Catholic Church a “fallen away Catholic.” Maybe some day I will change my ways.
Despite my personal situation/belief structure, what I do know for sure, however, is that it is a cardinal, fundamental, and immutable principle of the Catholic Church that holds that all life begins at conception. Period. End of sentence. (Drop mike.) There is no exception, dispensation, or alternative way of thinking in compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
There is obvious pressure for the Church to change its teachings on abortion. The problem with that is the fact that popes have spoken “ex cathedra,” i.e. “from the chair of Peter,” concerning the fact that life, protected life, begins at conception. It is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that when a pope speaks ex cathedra, he is articulating the word of God. If a pope can backpedal and say that prior popes were in error, the entire legitimacy of the Catholic Church is destroyed. Saying that Jesus Christ was simply a prophet and not the Son of God would be almost as serious.
What makes me almost puke, however, is when someone outside an organization wants to offer criticism about that organization’s beliefs and practices, for example, gays when it came to the former prohibition of the Boy Scouts concerning gay scout masters. The Scouts, under pressure, then changed their policy of never hiring a rabbit to deliver the lettuce. More’s the pity. From my perspective, gay people should have been forced to form their own youth organization and left the Scouts alone.
Secular forces have no real interest in the health or long run viability of the Catholic Church, but they are determined to force the right to abortion down the throat of the Catholic Church if they can. This priest hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the effete efforts of Catholic bishops to speak out against abortion. These weak-kneed, impotent, insipid clerics feel compelled to make limited efforts to comply with Catholic doctrine, but that is about it. If they were doing their jobs, they would be firebrands on the issue–exactly like this priest is.
Joe Biden is just another hypocritical Democrat politician who will profess his Catholic faith, and then espouse views that are diametrically opposed to it because doing so advances his career. (Ted Kennedy was another politician who did the same, and he seemed to be the darling of the New England Catholic Church and maverick Catholic Irishmen there.) This charade was evidenced in the Democrat primaries when Joe went full abortion rights. It is nauseating now to see him pull out his rosary beads as a political prop for the soft-headed, fuzzy thinking American Catholics who might be swayed by the theater involved. (“Oh, my, he’s one of us!”)
For Biden to say that he now believes in a woman’s right to choose (and without limitation) is like saying, to an actual practicing and devout Catholic, “I believe in a German’s right to choose and to decide for himself whether to put Jews on the train to Auschwitz.”
Let Joe Biden form his own damned church.
And let him take the so-called Catholics and at least a few bishops with him.
Amen to that! I join no particular religion, but I have my own relationship with God. I believe in freedom of any religion, i just wish they didn’t make it so confusing having so many types, but that’s what they need. More division! Smh
If you want a fully Secular Argument against Infanticide before Birth, point out that from the First Cell Division (conception) a Unique, Identifiable INDIVIDUAL PERSON now Exists. It’s like the “Genders” issue – there are only XX and XY chromosomes.
IF the church wasn’t run by a bunch of commie faggot child-molesters, and in Debt to the (((banks))), the Pope COULD put a Hard Stop to politicians like biden and others very Easily. All that has to happen is the issuance of a Papal Bull, to all memebers, Warning them that supporting Infanticide in any way, can subject them to Inquisition, to Determine if they are Members in Good Standing, or Apostates…
Paging Tommy Torquemada….
No, you don’t have to Rack them or Tear out Fingernails with Pliers. Just a little Open-source Intelligence work on the ‘net would find Scads of them in a matter of Minutes. The Committee of Inquisition could then forward the most Egregious Examples to the Pope, who could then Swing the Banhammer and Excommunicate the Apostates.
Yes, the usual suspects would scream that this is the “Church interfering in Politics”, but No, it isn’t. A Clear Statement by the Church that says “We don’t Care how you Vote, and We’re not Telling you how to Vote, but if You Vote for Infanticide, you Cannot be a Member of this Church.
Lawsuits? That would be Funny- ‘jew’ lawyers arguing that said Apostates’ Beliefs are Not in Conflict with the Doctrine of the Church.
The Journal of the American Revolution had an article hat dovetails well with your summary of James Byrd’s book: The Influence of “the Black Robes” Article source: https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/08/the-influence-of-the-black-robes/The lead paragraph is:
One of the lesser known but highly influential forces that kept the doctrines of the social contract, natural rights and the rule of law first and foremost in many colonists’ consciousness was the New England Clergy. They believed there was a divine covenant between man and God that was fixed, sacred and inviolable; from that covenant flowed the general principles of justice and equity and from the general principles flowed man’s “natural rights.” They believed that these rights had been planted deep in men’s hearts by God and “written as with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond.”[1] In 1669 John Davenport said in an Election Sermon, “the law of Nature is God’s law” both sacred and legally binding.[2]
A “member of our family”… not my family!! He has no care for God. God is simply a tool for those fake slum lords agenda! He hangs with the real dEVILS!