|He That Has Ears To
Hear, Let Him Hear
Last Updated Thursday March 03, 2011 05:06 PM -0500
An Open Letter to Governor Patrick
January 6, 2007
Honorable Governor Deval Patrick
Office of the Governor
Boston, MA 02133
Congratulations on your victory and Happy New Year!
I have noted that you took the oath of office on a Bible given to John Quincy Adams by Africans from the Amistad slave trade case. Excellent choice for Adams argued on behalf of the Africans in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and secured their freedom in 1841. However, I am perplexed at your intervention Tuesday hoping to convince the legislature to once again usurp their duty by refusing to vote on the initiative petition signed by over 170,000 VOTERS. Especially being an extremely important social issue, concerning the very core and foundation of civilization, the definition of marriage. Slavery and marriage are two totally different issues. Allowing same-sex unions and marriage would violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," where the abolition of slavery DID NOT, and therefore, to have these “rights” of freedom “entitled” was justified.
In a letter to the freed slaves, John Quincy Adams wrote: "It was from that book [the Bible] that I learnt to espouse your cause when you were in trouble."
Have you read in the Bible in Roman 1:18-31: where For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I'm further perplexed because John Quincy Adams’ father, John Adams who wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution a vote is required and is to be taken immediately after a resolution is filed. This has me wondering if you have subscribed to the secular liberal agenda to be selective in quoting Scripture and history, in the effort to assault, discredit, and diminish the faiths of Judeo-Christians, of which John Adams himself had publicly declared his Christian faith.
From FOXnews.com article on Jan. 2, 2007: Earlier in the day, Gov-elect Deval Patrick had met with Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi to urge against a vote, calling it a "question of conscience." He said the proposed amendment was the first time the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
It appears that you may have succumbed to the very thing John Adams warned against: " by confounding the natural distinctions of right and wrong, virtue and vice." Please explain how you can promote this artificial inequality of same-sex marriage unless you have “confounded the natural distinctions of right and wrong, virtue and vice?" --John Adams (letter to Count Sarsfield, 3 February 1786) Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett, 264.
Are you also selective in ignoring these other statements concerning “nature,” “moral virtue,” and “rights” made by John Adams, the author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also by the way, as President, along with an act of Congress, started The American Bible Society.
"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." -- John Adams (An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 29 August 1763) Reference: Original Intent, Barton (338); original The Papers of John Adams, Taylor, ed., vol. 1 (83)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
"Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. ... The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." --John Adams
"Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society." --John Adams
"Human government is more or less perfect as it approaches nearer or diverges farther from the imitation of this perfect plan of divine and moral government." John Adams, draft of a Newspaper Communication, Circa August 1770
"The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies." --John Adams
"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite...And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity..." --John Adams In an 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson.
On July 4, 1821, President John Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of government with the principles of Christianity."
"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal code as well as a moral and religious code. These are laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every Nation which ever professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of secular history to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as the Ten Commandments lay down." --John Adams
"It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship." --John Adams
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." --John Adams
"[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." --John Adams
Please clarify for me if you believe that "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" are now outdated as it was implied to me by a political office? Please explain how the marriage amendment will be "reinserting discrimination into the constitution" if marriage is redefined, clearly violating the boundaries established by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?" Secular liberals have been quick to use the word “discrimination but have yet to offer a foundation for establishing the boundaries which define how “rights” are determined. Could you please provide what foundation you use to establish the boundaries for defining “civil rights.”
Do you only subscribe to the “moral virtue” exhibited by John Adams and his son and not the Biblical worldview of Christianity which provided the basis of his “moral virtue” that prompted his son to speak out against slavery? Does the reproof of Jesus (John 3:16-21) and St. Paul (Romans 1) not exist in the Bible in which you took your oath?
provide a specific response to my concern, for the record: Secular liberal
progressives have implied that that which is written in the opening paragraph
of the Declaration of Independence no longer applies to today's society,
indicating that "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," which
provides the boundary for how "Rights" are to be "entitled" is now outdated.
So what is the "new and improved" basis in determining how "Rights" are
"entitled?" What new wisdom is being employed? Have secular liberals overruled
the founder's Biblical worldview of “moral virtue” and replaced it with
a liberal secular progressive worldview whereby the "Laws of Nature" no
longer applies? Has the word “nature” also been redefined to a new an
improved “politically correct” secular liberal definition which excludes “moral
virtue,” responsibility and commitment?
James Madison, the primary writer of the U.S. Constitution, and who provided the original draft, wrote to Thomas Jefferson in the year of the Declaration's 50th anniversary, of its supremacy over our nation's Constitution: "On the distinctive principles of the Government...of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in...The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States." And again President James Madison, on June 20, 1785 stated: "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civilized Society, he must first be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."
Alexander Hamilton also stated: "To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."
"The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of
nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating
universally and perpetually."
James Wilson (Of the Law of Nature, 1804) Reference: The Works of the
Honourable James Wilson, Wilson, ed., vol. 1 (137-138)
The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence in which Thomas Jefferson also provided the draft: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." The second paragraph continues: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
"Unalienable rights" are "entitled" if they do not violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" which establishes the boundaries and rules for America's Laws as James Madison, the Author of the U.S. Constitution exclaimed. This is the same as where athletes are "entitled" to play according to the boundaries and rules of their sport. Otherwise there would be chaos. Civil Rights and Liberties are "entitled" by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Yet marriage is being redefined and schools are now teaching our children that “that which goes against nature" (Romans 1) is now normal, in direct opposition to parents of Judeo-Christian faiths. What then is the real "hate crime?" Being out of the boundaries of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as is same-sex unions and marriage, depicts the chaos in the facts and health consequences of that lifestyle. How is it secular liberals applaud (albeit misrepresent) Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists, while ignoring his opening paragraph of America’s founding document? Why do secular liberals also avoid this reference to Jefferson? "That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." -- Thomas Jefferson (Rights of British America, 1774) Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (121)
Last but extremely important is perhaps like most who subscribe to the secular liberal mainstream media, you may be unaware of the increase in children being born out of wedlock in Scandinavia since marriage was redefined there. William Murray, the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, warns of the dangers of legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. He says Scandinavia has had nearly a decade of legal homosexual marriage, and it has nearly destroyed the institution of marriage altogether. Excerpts: In Scandinavia, illegitimate birth rates exceed 50 percent. The majority of Swedish and Norwegian children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Meanwhile, marriage rates subtly decline while, in some countries, divorce rates have skyrocketed to nearly 80 percent. ...Still, as Kurtz noted, such studies have been done. He says they showed that "throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution."Details at: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/132004c.asp and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064217/posts
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
which do think posses “moral virtue,” Judeo-Christian parents of
Lexington and Newton or the school administrators which teach an abnormal
lifestyle that produces elevated health care risks and costs, and as
Scandinavia has proven scores of children in broken families? So who exactly
is more concerned for the well being of the children?
A Biblical challenge for you: Many are being duped, many more just don't care, or are too busy to take notice of what kind of "civilization" this generation is leaving for our descendents. Is Satan using those who assault the Judeo-Christian faiths to undermine the natural marriage and family? Is this Satan's final assault and the reason for high divorce rates and the support of same-sex marriage by "those with reprobate minds?" Is it the evil one's last gasp attempt to destroy the very fabric and foundation of how "civil" societies are based? Will the chaos being experienced by children in Scandinavia permeate throughout the world because Christians are unable to judge without hypocrisy and thus have relinquished their call to be the salt and light of the world? Do you know how important marriage is to God, which is why He uses marriage as an analogy for Christ and the Church, in becoming as one? (Ephesians 5) Is marriage between one man and one woman and the natural family, being the very core of civilizations, the reason Satan has targeted marriage, using those whose mind he has blinded to the Gospel of Christ (2 Corinthians 4)? He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
Among those who have been deceived (Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools), include the mainstream media, secular liberal politicians (even those who may claim to be Christian), public school administrators, most college professors, and most disturbingly judges. They appear to have subscribed to the misguided ploy that the new redefined "politically correct" definitions of words like discrimination, tolerance, diversity, hate, fear, and bigotry, which falsely target Judeo-Christian faiths in an attempt to discredit and diminish those faiths using deception which is also disturbingly aided and abetted by Judeo-Christian apathy. These are those whom the Scriptures refer to as having a reprobate mind and used hidden things of dishonesty, walking in craftiness, and handling the word of God deceitfully have fooled many under the guise of "rights, safety, and bullying." Yet many considered wise in this world have succumbed lock, stock, and barrel and are now promoting that which is evil. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4
Therefore I am anxious to hear someone with your status to please clarify for
me the new and improved secular wisdom that implies what our founding fathers
must have overlooked. Please be specific and do not generalize like most
secular liberal responses, which ridiculously come with false accusations of
hate, or simply state “we disagree.” Please explain why you disagree. What is
your foundation? How do you determine rules and boundaries if not by “the
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God?” Also, using the divorce rate in
heterosexual marriages is not an argument, albeit we may agree that this also
is of grave concern, yet heterosexual marriage, like slavery, does not violate
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
"Let the pulpit resound with the doctrine and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear of the dignity of man's nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God. ... Let it be known that...liberties are not the grants of princes and parliaments." --John Adams
“Society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” --John Adams
Will Massachusetts and the nation soon learn where Deval Patrick differs from John Adams, the author of the Massachusetts Constitution? Will polygamy be next if marriage is redefined? How will “civil” right boundaries be established if not by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God?”
Finally, what if the 4-3 decision had been reversed to negate same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and there was an initiative petition to bring it to a popular vote? Would you be for it then, or would you discriminate against homosexual voters also?
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me.
Will OUR descendents know “moral virtue?”
P.S. A heads-up on taxes: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." —John Adams
P.P.S. A heads-up on ILLEGAL immigration: Patrick Henry - "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Calvin Coolidge - "Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American. American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would lie well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America."
Copyright © 2005 EarsToHear.net
Thursday March 03, 2011 05:06 PM -0500