This is the last Sunday before the General Election on November 6, 2012. In America, we separate Church from State. But why? At one time we separated Church from State to protect religious freedom. We did not want government officials establishing their own religious preferences by law. But now? Now it seems that we now separate the Church from the State to keep any hint of religious belief out of public life.

Should we separate the State from the Church? Why would we want to do that? Consider some of the issues we debate.

• Our rights? Doesn’t the Declaration of Independence affirm our rights come from God? Isn’t that belief why America exists?
• Capital Punishment? Don’t we punish lawbreakers because they sin when the violate the rights of another? Isn’t the nature of this debate whether we have the God-given right to punish a murderer with death?
• Education? Don’t parents have a moral obligation to educate their children? Doesn’t the Bible require parents to bring up children in the Christian faith?
• Charity? Don’t we each have a moral obligation to love our neighbor and to help our neighbor in time of need? Don’t we point to the Bible to explain this obligation? But what is charity? When government takes money from a “rich” citizen and gives it to a “poor” citizen is that stealing or is it charity?
• The Definition of Marriage. Government licenses our marriages.  Nevertheless, marriage is an institution which predates government and most people have a religious ceremony. Given that, how should we define marriage? Who should do it? Who has already done it?
• And so forth.

What is the point here? Some would say Christianity has nothing to say about government. Yet it is because God cares about government that He gave Moses a legal system. We call it the Mosaic Law, and it is part of the Old Testament.

Are you a Christian? When we go to the polls, we must remember that how we govern ourselves is a reflection of our religious beliefs. When our nation was founded, the founders created a government anchored in Christian beliefs, that is, the Bible. Christianity is the belief system they passed onto us, hoping we would retain Christian beliefs, that as their heirs we could make a government of free men and women work.

Because so many of us have not studied the Bible, we risk failure. Many of us do not understand what the Bible teaches. Many think they do, but their knowledge is generally second hand and too shallow. Too many of us have not actually read the Bible, not even once. Nonetheless, God still holds us accountable for what we do. When we sin through our government, we still sin, and each member of the Christian clergy should know this.

Do you attend a church? When you vote, do you want to know what the Bible says about the issues we debate? Then strengthen your pastor. Please ask him to help you understand what the Bible says about politics, and don’t wait until after the next election.

Still undecided about how you will vote on Tuesday? Here are a couple of recommendations you may wish to consider.

The first spot is from a victim of eminent domain abuse.

Bob Wilson, A Business Owner, on the Property Rights Amendment

The second is from our Attorney General.

AG Cuccinelli on the Property Rights Amendment

decadent 

adj : marked by excessive self-indulgence and moral decay; “a decadent life of excessive money and no sense of           responsibility”; “a group of effete self-professed intellectuals” [syn: effete]

n: a person who has fallen into a decadent state (morally or
artistically)

Where did that word come from? The Online Etymology Dictionary tells us that we derived that word from the word “decay.” Here is how they begin their study of that word.

“in a state of decline or decay (from a former condition of excellence),” 1837, from Fr. décadent, back formation from décadence (see decadence). (continued here)

Decay is an ugly thing. Not too long when an animal died as road kill near the edge of the road, road crews would come and remove the poor beast. No more. Now we leave body for vultures. Check out “road kill” vulture. Where once they were once an object of disgust, vultures now are objects of admiration (Watching the Vulture at the Road Kill).

Even more oddly, many call upon us to either indulge ourselves in decadent behavior or to admire their self-indulgence.

• Disney’s decadent dining
• Decadent Chocolate Tart
• Ralph Lauren’s Decadent “Garage” (Re: Luxury Auto Museum)
• THE DECADENT TRAVELLER

Unfortunately, the decadence that some aspire to is so perverse I will not link to it.

So why this post? Consider Senator Tom Coburn’s Waste Book 2012. In fact, consider what Senator Coburn has to say about it.

When Americans go to the polls we won’t just be making a decision about what kind of government we want. We will be making a decision about what kind of government we will tolerate. In recent elections politicians from both sides of the aisle promised to go through the budget line by line and make hard choices. That hasn’t happened. The only change Washington has been interested in is in your pocket.

This week I released my annual “Wastebook” report, featuring 100 examples of mismanagement, wasteful spending and special interest deals that illustrate just how far Washington continues to go to avoid setting priorities.

Consider a few examples: (continued here)

What is Senator Coburn’s first example? The Senate has not even bothered itself to prepare a budget. Because we have been self-indulgent, we have elected too many self-indulgent people to lead us. Do we fancy ourselves as vultures? How is it that we can preen and admire ourselves as we feed upon the dying corpse we have let country become? I don’t know. What I do know is that are wasting huge sums and leaving our children and grandchildren needlessly burdened with debt.

Consider this wisdom from Proverbs.

Proverbs 22:26-27 Good News Translation (GNT)

²⁶ Don’t promise to be responsible for someone else’s debts. ²⁷ If you should be unable to pay, they will take away even your bed.

When we elect people who borrow in our name, we become responsible for the debts they incur. When we borrow as a nation, we pass on the debts we leave unpaid to future generations. Therefore, when we decadently incur needless debt we must ask: will  creditors take away even our children’s beds? And all because their parents allowed themselves to become decadent?

The voice in this video is that of the late Henry Hyde, author of the Hyde Amendment, which for decades with bipartisan support has precluded federal funds for the use of abortion . . . until Obamacare. It is one of the most powerful two minutes you will ever hear. There are no poetic words nor profound phrases possible to enhance or explain his thoughts or his passion. The video was produced by our friends at FRC Action.

Reference A Lethal Assault Against The Very Idea Of Human Rights That Destroys The Moral Foundation Of Our Democracy.

• Amending Section 11 of Article I of the Constitution of Virginia (.pdf)
• Amending Section 6 of Article IV of the Constitution of Virginia (.pdf)

The first amendment would give us more protection from abuses of the eminent domain law. The second would give the General Assembly more discretion when it selects a starting date for the “veto” session. The “veto” session occurs when the General Assembly reconvenes after the regular session to reconsider bills returned to it by the Governor with vetoes or amendments.

For more details about what is on your ballot, please see 2012 GENERAL ELECTION IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

Not certain our voter guides are all you need. Below are some other places you can go. Note that we do not necessarily agree with the positions taken by these organizations. However, we do believe that to be informed is to be forearmed. With that qualification, we have provided links to voter guides that apply to elections around the Virginia Commonwealth.

Note that many of the folks that operate these guides will ask for your address. To some extent, that is a perfectly legitimate request. What is on your ballot depends upon where you live. Moreover, everything costs money, even the preparation of voter guides. However, since you probably don’t want all these websites requesting donation, where necessary and possible, I have posted a direct link.

• Judeo-ChristianVoterGuide.com links to voter guides around the nation.
• The Family Foundation has an article you should see, 2012 Virginia Voter Guides Are Here!
• The Heritage Alliance provides a 50-STATE VOTER GUIDE. Here is a link to all of the races in Virginia.
• The Christian Coalition of America provides 2012 Voter Guides. Here is a direct link.
• WallBuilders provides Election Resources and Information.
• 2012 California Election Forum provides a good comparison between the presidential candidates here.
• Fairmount Christian Church provides a Voter Awareness webpage.
• The Pray In Jesus Name Project provides free Church Voter Guides.
• The Catholic Diocese of Arlington has a Religious Liberty webpage.
• Human Life International, a Catholic organization, provides Catholic Voter Guides.

Late Addition (11/02/2012)

• Liberty Counsel provides a guide on the U.S. Senate race.
• Faith & Freedom Coalition has a Voter Guide for each state.
• Priests for Life has a Political Responsibility Center that includes links to voter guides

Note that stating and standing by one’s opinion will draw fire, and Christian Coalition of America is a favorite target. Here are a few examples.

• 3 Big Lies in Religious-Right ‘Voter Guide’ Hitting 13 Million Cell Phones at AlterNet (appeared later at Salon.com here)
• Christian Voter Guide 2012 Presidential Election at SkepticMoney

What is the proper response to such articles? Well, everyone has an agenda. So bias must be assumed. If you doubt the accuracy of a voter guide, check out some its claims. Just keep in mind that the critics also have their biases. Sometimes the accuser is the one who lies.

Note that you can find election information directly relevant to Prince William County at this webpage, 2012 GENERAL ELECTION IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

• The Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance 2012 Voter Guide for the 1st and 11th Congressional Districts

The candidates include:

• Gerry Connolly (D)
• Chris DeCarlo (I)
• Joe Galdo (I)
• Mark Gibson (I)
• Peter Marchetti (I)
• Chris Perkins (R)

Gerry Connolly is the incumbent.

For more information check out 2012 GENERAL ELECTION IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

• The Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance 2012 Voter Guide for the 1st and 10th Congressional Districts

The candidates include:

• Kristin Cabral (D)
• Kevin Chisholm (I)
• Frank Wolf (R)

Frank Wolf is the incumbent.

For more information check out 2012 GENERAL ELECTION IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

• The Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance 2012 Voter Guide for the 1st and 10th Congressional Districts
• The Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance 2012 Voter Guide for the 1st and 11th Congressional Districts

The candidates include:

• Adam Cook (D)
• Gail Parker (I)
• Rob Wittman (R)

Rob Wittman is the incumbent.

For more information check out 2012 GENERAL ELECTION IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

The first anti-Federalist paper came out less than a month after the close of the Constitutional Convention, October 5, 1787 in Pennsylvania. Centinel (perhaps a pen-name for Samuel Bryan) began his first paper on with the following words.

Permit one of yourselves to put you in mind of certain liberties and privileges secured to you by the constitution of this commonwealth, and to beg your serious attention to his uninterested opinion upon the plan of federal government submitted to your consideration, before you surrender these great and valuable privileges up forever. Your present frame of government, secures to you a right to hold yourselves, houses, papers and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants granted without oaths or affirmations first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search your houses or seize your persons or property, not particularly described in such warrant, shall not be granted. Your constitution further provides “that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.” It also provides and declares. “that the people have a right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and of WRITING and PUBLISHING their sentiments, therefore THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OUGHT NOT TO BE RESTRAINED. ” The constitution of Pennsylvania is yet in existence, as yet you have the right to freedom of speech, and of publishing your sentiments. How long those rights will appertain to you, you yourselves are called upon to say, whether your houses shall continue to be your castles; whether your papers, your persons and your property, are to be held sacred and free from general warrants, you are now to determine. Whether the trial by jury is to continue as your birth-right, the freemen of Pennsylvania, nay, of all America, are now called upon to declare. (continued here)

The Chronology suggests a speech by James Wilson provided the first pro-Federalist paper. Here is how Wilson began in Pennsylvania a day later.

Mr. Chairman and Fellow Citizens:

Having received the honor of an appointment to represent you in the late convention, it is perhaps my duty to comply with the request of many gentlemen whose characters and judgements I sincerely respect, and who have urged that this would be a proper occasion to lay before you any information which will serve to explain and elucidate the principles and arrangements of the constitution that has been submitted to the consideration of the United States….

It will be proper … to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.

This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition — what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom? If, indeed, a power similar to that which has been granted for the regulation of commerce had been granted to regulate literary publications, it would have been as necessary to stipulate that the liberty of the press should be preserved inviolate, as that the impost should be general in its operation. With respect likewise to the particular district of ten miles, which is to be made the seat of federal government, it will undoubtedly be proper to observe this salutary precaution, as there the legislative power will be exclusively lodged in the President, Senate, and House of Representatives of the United States. But this could not be an object with the Convention, for it must naturally depend upon a future compact to which the citizens immediately interested will, and ought to be, parties; and there is no reason to suspect that so popular a privilege will in that case be neglected. In truth, then, the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject — nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent. (continued here)

In 1787, to acquire the powers they wanted to set up a central government,  advocates for a national government had to prove that the powers they wanted were necessary and that individual rights would be protected. Today, advocates for centralized power have no such problem. Instead, the citizens of our wavering constitutional republic struggle in an uphill battle to restrain our leaders from seizing powers they are under oath to refuse.

We should be ashamed. In return the relative peace we have today — because of the laziness with which we defend our rights — we risk leaving our children and grandchildren both heavily indebted and in chains.