New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!---The Miracle and Magnificence of America. If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book (as low as $9.99). Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new Facebook page for The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Gender Debate Reveals Again Why the Left Must Be Defeated

Donald Trump has finally returned the U.S. military to sound service policy when it comes to the gender-confused. For nearly the whole history of the U.S. military, and for almost as long as the idea of a “transgendered” person has existed, and for reasons that sounded-minded people have long understood and accepted, individuals who imagined themselves “trapped in the wrong body” (or some version of such perversion) have been barred from serving in any branch of the U.S. armed forces.

The only thing that should be up for debate here is why this took so long. Perhaps it was just some measure of politics, but this decision should have been easy and quick. In other words, the decision whether to ban the mentally ill (I prefer morally ill) from serving in the U.S. military should have happened within the first couple of weeks of the Trump administration. Does anyone really need to study why this



is wrong? In the early 1970s, Hollywood liberals made many jokes at the expense of a man who would stoop to dressing as a woman. M.A.S.H. was by no stretch of the imagination an expression of Christianity or conservatism. In other words, just a few decades ago, even the left had some idea of the abnormality of men dressing as women. Not so today.

I've had much to say already when it comes to the gender-confused (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and that is a horrific indictment on our culture. There’s no way that in any healthy culture so many words must be written explaining and defending what is a male and what is a female.

It is of course absurd that we continue to have to debate the clear, undeniable science and morality of life in the womb, the unmistakable truth of what is marriage, and the like, but to have to debate seriously with large segments of our culture—including high-ranking officials in the worlds of science and politics—what is a man and what is a woman is perhaps the highest level of absurdity any human being in America with two brain cells to rub together has had to endure. Again, we see, liberalism corrupts.

Is there anything in the sexual realm—whether the reproductive act, or the biological classification—where liberals will not compromise? With such compromise—or rejection of absolute truths—comes many different logical conundrums.

As an exercise, try to get someone whose heart and mind are significantly corrupted by liberalism to define male and female. Or ask what is their definition of marriage? (If they give you one, ask them, “Why do you discriminate?”) Or ask them if they agree with federal laws protecting bald eagles, sea turtles, and other animals while they are still inside eggs. If they do, then follow up with the question, “Why do you feel those animal embryos are worth protecting, but not human life in the womb?”

The return to a recognition of gender dysphoria as a disorder by the U.S. military raises some other interesting questions. After North Carolina passed their common sense “bathroom bill,” everyone from the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, to PayPal, sought to punish the Tar Heel State. The NBA moved its all-star game out of Charlotte. The NFL walked a finer line, but NFL commissioner Roger Goodell still spoke out strongly against laws that are intended to keep men out of women’s restrooms.

Likewise, earlier this year, the NFL threatened the state of Texas over its “bathroom bill.” When asked about the Texas bill, NFL spokesmen Brian McCarthy said, “If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events.” The Trump administration’s decree on the gender-confused puts the NFL in an interesting position.

The NFL has a long history of partnership with the U.S. military. From flag-covered fields to fighter-jet flyovers, troops on the fields and sidelines, camouflage jerseys and hats, and so on, for decades the NFL has aided the American armed forces in promotion, recruitment, and recognition. Of course, for the vast majority of this time, the gender-confused were barred from military service. But now what? Will the NFL continue to aid and abet the science-deniers at the expense of our military?

And speaking of science, how about the Trump administration also reverse the foolishly ignorant Obama-era edict that allows for U.S. women on the front lines of combat operations?

I say again, it is little wonder that American politicians can’t get things as complicated as health care, tax reform, immigration, North Korea, Islamic terrorism, the Middle East, and so on correct. When you can’t agree with your opponent on things as fundamental as life, marriage, and biological gender, there is almost no middle ground left where we can agree. In these grave matters, there is no compromise: the immoral efforts of the modern left must be defeated—both spiritually (which will eventually happen) and politically.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Klinger Gets His Wish: U.S. Military Bans the Gender-Confused

I'll have more to say on this later, but I think the most important thing to first note on this common-sense reversal of Obama's perverse policy experiment that allowed the gender-confused to serve in the U.S. military: WHAT TOOK SO LONG?!!!

Does anyone really need to "study" why this is wrong?!:


Perhaps it was just politics, but this decision should have been easy and quick. I've had much to say already when it comes to the gender-confused (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and that is a horrific indictment on our culture. I think it absurd that we continue to have to debate the clear, undeniable science of life in the womb, the unmistakable truth of what is marriage, and the like, but to have to seriously debate with large segments of our culture--including high-ranking officials in the worlds of science and politics--what is a man and what is a woman is perhaps the highest level of absurdity any human being in America with two brain cells to rub together has had to endure. Again we see, liberalism corrupts.

Trump deserves some credit here, but to loudly applaud this would be like cheering your adult daughter for finally breaking up with her smelly, jobless, drug-addicted boyfriend. You're happy that it happened, but sorry you ever had to put up with such nonsense.

A final point: If the military can ban the gender-confused, then why can't schools, businesses, and so on, in the name of safety and expense, be allowed to require one's biology to determine one's access to locker rooms, bathrooms and the like?

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

We’re Raising Our Boys to be “Dangerous” Men

My wife Michelle and I have three sons and one daughter. Much to the dismay of foolish, so-called “feminists” like Jody Allard, we’re raising every one of them to be “dangerous,” though, not in the sense that Ms. Allard imagines. It’s worse—much, much, worse.

In case you missed it, Ms. Allard is the infamous mother who—while longing for “safe,” “feminist men,” and lamenting the allegedly numerous men who populate the so-called “rape culture,”—has more than once publicly shamed her two sons. I suppose the young men—both in their late teens—should at least be thankful that their angry, deceived, corrupted-by-liberalism mother didn’t kill them in the womb.

Last year, in a piece for the Washington Post, Ms. Allard stunningly declared, “My sons are part of the [rape culture] problem.” What makes her conclusion so stunning is that this mother deems her own boys “part of the problem,” not because of some wicked sexual activity, but merely because they are males and they refuse to participate actively in ending the “rape culture.”

This year, Allard followed up her 2016 hyperbole with this:
If the feminist men — the men who proudly declare their progressive politics and their fight for [e]quality— aren’t safe, then what man is? No man, I fear. 
I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true. (Emphasis mine.)
Of course, unsafe men include her own sons. Again, Ms. Allard intolerantly labels her own boys unsafe because they have a penis and because they refuse to acknowledge the “rape culture” their mother insists exists.

There is a terrible bit of tragic irony here. Because they’ve been raised by an extremely liberal mother and without a father, almost certainly Ms. Allard’s sons are saddled with a psychology and a worldview that most likely will take them down regrettable paths. As I’ve often noted, the absence of fathers has had a devastating effect on children in America.

Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. Children living with their married biological parents are the least likely to commit criminal acts. On the other hand, according to Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates,
Children of single-parent homes [almost always without a father] are more likely to…engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent. Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States… 
According to Rolf Loeber, Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology and Epidemiology at the Western Psychiatric Institute in the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, “A close and intense relationship between a boy and his father prevents hostility and inappropriate aggressiveness.” This inappropriate aggressiveness is an early indication of potential delinquency later on, particularly in boys.
According to Edward Kruk at Psychology Today, among other “disastrous” results, fatherless children are much more likely to be involved in violent crime (such as sexual assault). Kruk reports that “85 per cent of youth in prison have an absent father; fatherless children are more likely to offend and go to jail as adults.” As Maggie Gallagher warned in the late 1990s, “Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men.”

Additionally, multiple studies note that fatherless children (and children from broken families in general) are FAR more likely to themselves be victims of violence and sexual assault. The National Children’s Alliance reveals,
Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases when children live with step-parents or a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents (Sedlack, et. al., 2010).
In spite of these sobering facts—that anyone with a sound biblical worldview did not need to read—liberals like Ms. Allard continue to wage war on the family in America. What does the perverse redefinition of marriage achieved by liberals reveal if not that they believe that fathers and mothers don’t really matter? The sexual sin and violence that plagues our culture are the direct result of the efforts of liberals across the U.S —from our campuses to our courts. In other words, on sexual assault (or “rape culture”), liberals like Ms. Allard are mourning a culture that they helped to create.

Ms. Allard claims to have talked with her boys about “consent, misogyny and rape culture since they were tweens,” but has she talked to them about what it truly means for a husband to love his wife and for a wife to love her husband? Has she taught them to remain sexually pure until they are married? Has she warned them about the dangers of promiscuity, pornography (and its link to sexual aggression), and the homosexual lifestyle?

Among many other lies and perversions promoted by modern liberalism, my wife and I are warning our children about these dangers. What’s more, we are raising them to be agents of truth in this era of lies. We are teaching them to obey the Word of their Creator when it comes to marriage, sex, the family, and so on. We are teaching them to be witnesses to the world of all that is good and right, but given where we are with the sad state of the family in America, this is especially true of matters in the sexual realm.

In other words, we are teaching each of our four children to be “dangerous” to the cause of the “father of lies” and all of those who aid and abet him in this world.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Sorry, Mr. Pitts, but Liberalism is Beyond “Silly”

Well, well, it seems the “T” in LGBT has finally produced a line that even committed liberals are unwilling—or at least, not yet willing—to cross. For liberal columnist Leonard Pitts, a “genderless” child is the “proverbial bridge too far.” Of course, given the sad, sick, rotten fruit of modern liberalism, Mr. Pitts’ conclusion on genderless children raises the question: Why would any devoted liberal of the 21st century be taken aback by an “enlightened” parent who refuses to recognize the clear gender of his or her newborn child?

Touting his rock-solid liberal credentials, in his recent piece, Mr. Pitts points out,
I have, after all, long taken great pride in supporting LGBTQ freedom. Marriage equality, adoption rights, job protections, I have demanded them. Restroom ID laws, “don’t ask, don’t tell” and so-called “religious freedom” measures, I have fought them.
If modern liberalism “demands” that we dehumanize the unborn and ignore the clear science and morality of life in the womb; if it can procure from U.S. courts a legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity; if it has concluded that elementary, middle, and high school students in America have the “right” to use whatever bathroom or locker room they so desire; if it allows for men to take trophies from women, or that there’s nothing wrong with women on performance-enhancing drugs to take trophies from normal women; if it has determined that women in combat are just as capable as men in combat; if it has decided that men can have babies (Is there a better headline to reveal the corruption of modern liberalism than, “British Man, 21, Makes History by Giving Birth…”?); if it has resolved that a black business owner doesn’t have to serve a “plantation wedding,” but a Christian business owner must serve a same-sex “wedding,” why would any modern liberal be surprised that those under the influence of liberalism would reject one of the tenets of basic biology?

In an effort to undermine Scripture, while at the same time attempting to excoriate Christian conservatives, liberals love to hail their knowledge of biology as they attempt to tout the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution (D.E.). Devoted Darwinists tell us that D.E. is the “foundation of biology,” or the “foundation of modern medicine.” Or, as the infamous Bill Nye put it in a YouTube video leading up to his 2014 debate with Ken Ham (a creation vs. evolution debate), “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.” Nye implies that without evolution, “you’re just not going to get the right answer.”

Of course it was Nye who just this year posted this obscenity, which I described a few days later as “the anthem of modern liberalism.” Nye’s insanely stupid video—which he introduced as a “very special…cool little segment”—implies that, where we are now with the gender debate (which is like debating whether or not the earth is round)—with many corrupted by liberalism unable to tell the difference between a boy and a girl—is due to “evolution.” The lyrics in the video also declare
Sexuality's a spectrum
Everyone is on it…
Drag queen, drag king
Just do what feels right
There you have it. The motto of modern liberalism: “Just do what feels right.” Yet a liberal like Leonard Pitts is surprised that folks who heed this ignorant, wicked garbage would stoop to purposefully ignoring and obscuring the gender of their child. Again, this is what liberalism has wrought. In other words, this is what your labor has wrought, Leonard.

And this is FAR beyond being “silly.” It is despicable. These are the efforts of one who is “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” In other words, these are the efforts of one steeped in spiritual darkness.

Again, labeling your child an “it” is what happens when you ignore the eternal truths of the One who made us. Debating gender, life in the womb, marriage, et al, is what happens when “Everybody Wants to Rule Their World.” It is little wonder that American politicians can’t get things as complicated as health care, tax reform, immigration, North Korea, Islamic terrorism, the Middle East, and so on correct. When you can’t agree with your opponent on things as fundamental as life and marriage, there is almost no middle ground left where we can agree.

This is why liberalism must be fought at every turn. Whether politics, education, entertainment, industry, the military, and yes—tragically—even the church, those right-minded must work to defeat liberalism. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com



Monday, July 10, 2017

See My Recent Interview on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report

I was interviewed this evening on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report. See (mostly listen) below. (Sorry for all of the "Uhs" and "Umms"! Michelle warned me, but I wasn't aware that I was that bad. I've got to work on that!)


Thursday, July 6, 2017

The Vile, Crazy Left

On the political spectrum, I land just to the right of Moses. As I’ve pointed out before, my political positions are the result of my Christian faith. So yes, I’m a bit bothered by how President Trump— for whom I voted, and given the same circumstances, would gladly do so again—chooses to fight back against the “progressive” press. However, I’m glad he is fighting back against the relentless tide of hate-filled rhetoric and lies that are a daily part of the discourse spewed by liberals in the mainstream media and the democrat party.

One of the frequent talking points of those on the left today is that because of the way Trump has dealt with the media—especially through Twitter—and others with whom he disagrees, he is vile, vulgar, “trashy,” undignified, un-presidential, piggish, childish, and as Jay Bookman of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution put it, with “all the self-control and discipline of a spoiled four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum at the grocery store.” Yeah, well, at least he’s not a liberal—or, better put, at least he’s not beholden to a liberal agenda.

I’m afraid much of what we read and hear from the President that is undesirable is the result of living most of his life under significant liberal influence. As even Rush Limbaugh himself pointed out less than two months prior to the election last year, Donald Trump is not a conservative—at least not in the sense that most define real conservatism. But as Rush also pointed out, strong conservatism hasn’t been at the top of the GOP ticket since 1984. What Donald Trump is, and what he can continue to be, is a great ally in the battle against liberalism and the radical, perverse agenda of the modern left.

President Trump has proven this many times over since his inauguration on January 20. From (most of) his cabinet appointments, to his Supreme Court appointment, his lower court appointments, his executive orders, and so on, President Trump has gotten much done to aid the cause of conservatism and hinder the cause of liberalism. Of course, liberals are not blind to this, and thus the continuous “nasty” attacks from the left.

And nasty is as nasty does. The left simply can’t help itself, because, for the most part, it is simply who they are. In addition to their dishonest attempts to undermine President Trump and the GOP’s agenda, time and again, liberals have left nearly no insult unturned as they have sought to ridicule and insult President Trump and his family. Along with the countless vile attacks on the President, Ivanka (see here, here, and here), Melania, (see here, here, and here), and even 11 year-old Barron Trump (see here, here, and here) have suffered the evil ire of the modern left.

Yet President Trump is supposed to remain “dignified” and “presidential?” He is probably doing well to respond only in the manner he has. I’m not sure there is a husband and father the world over who has been forced to endure such attacks on himself and his family as has Donald Trump.

The vulgar and crazy attacks against Trump and the GOP aren’t only from the liberal media. Many democrat politicians have not only remained silent—and thus given tacit support to their cohorts in the media—but they’ve joined in the abhorrent attacks against republicans of every stripe. Whether publicly dropping “f-bombs”—as did two democrat senators (so much for the “dignity” of “the world’s greatest deliberative body”) recently in attacking the GOP and President Trump—or comparing the Trump camp to Nazis, democrats across the U.S. are unhinged in their rhetoric.

In late March, no less than the newly elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, ignorantly and defiantly declared that Mr. Trump “did not win the election.” He colorfully followed that up with the all too common democrat refrain “Republicans don’t give a sh*t about people.”

Just where are the cries for dignity and decent behavior for those on the left? Where are the high expectations for those of the esteemed “Fourth Estate?” Shouldn’t we demand honest and upright behavior from those worthy of specific protection in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Alas, whether elected officials, members of the press, entertainers, educators, and even those devoted to ministry, liberalism corrupts. And liberals still wonder how — just how any self-respecting person could support Donald Trump. Maybe those devoted to killing children in the womb, killing the family, killing capitalism, redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, redefining gender, redefining the Second Amendment, defending and promoting pornography (and virtually any other sexual perversion imaginable), defending and promoting socialism, defending and promoting the myth of global warming, and so on, should consider how vile and vulgar many Americans find the tenets of modern liberalism.

In other words, if modern liberals want to see something really revolting, most of them need to examine their own politics and policies.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Revival Sparked the Revolution (taken from The Miracle and Magnificence of America)

Between the colonial and Revolutionary periods of American history came what historians have dubbed the (first) “Great Awakening.” The lack of passionate Christianity, along with the coinciding adoption of certain liberal interpretations of Scripture and a turn toward the secular, greatly concerned ministers such as Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Prince, and William Cooper.

By the 1730s, passionate and animated pleas for the souls of lost Colonials became widespread. A common refrain was soon heard throughout the colonies: “God was an angry judge, and humans were sinners!”

The earliest principle figure of this period of spiritual revival was the brilliant and pious Puritan minister Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was literally born into Christian ministry. His father was a Congregationalist minister, and his mother, Esther Stoddard Edwards, was the daughter of renowned Massachusetts minister Solomon Stoddard. Stoddard succeeded Eleazer Mather as pastor of the Congregationalist Church in Northampton, Massachusetts. He was a firebrand of a preacher who abhorred alcohol and extravagance.

Though his theology was in conflict with many contemporary Puritan leaders, Stoddard was an extremely influential religious leader in the New England area for several decades. Jonathan Edwards succeeded his grandfather as pastor of the church at Northampton. Edwards was a prolific writer as well and is recognized as one of the great intellectuals of his time. He produced such works as Freedom of the Will, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, and The Life of David Brainerd, which inspired countless missionaries of the nineteenth century.

Jonathan Edwards loved the pulpit, and according to BJU Press, was more teacher and preacher than pastor. In late 1734 and early 1735, revival broke out in Northampton. By the summer of 1735, it ended, but the seeds for something more lasting were planted. Enter the mighty George Whitefield. Whitefield is generally considered the “Father of the Great Awakening.” Born in England in 1714, Whitefield entered Pembroke College at Oxford at age 17. There he joined a group called the “Holy Club,” where he befriended John and Charles Wesley. John Wesley led the group, and as a result of their “methodical” ways, critics took to calling them “Methodists.” Of course, the name stuck.

Upon graduating and receiving his BA, Whitefield was ordained at 22. He began his preaching in the British towns of Bath, Bristol, and Gloucester. However, he felt the call to join General Oglethorpe’s colony in Georgia. In 1738 Whitefield left for North America. Not long after arriving in Georgia, noting the hard conditions, high death rate, and an abundance of children who had lost their parents, he conceived the idea of an orphanage. For the rest of his life, Whitefield raised money for the orphanage.

He also continued to preach. Whitefield’s message was one of salvation, a message which differed a bit from other Anglican ministers at the time who emphasized religiosity and moral living. It was not long before most of Georgia had heard of this young preacher with the booming voice and wild pulpit antics. News of Whitefield and his preaching soon spread throughout the colonies.

In 1739, after a brief return to England in hopes of securing land and funding for the orphanage in Georgia, Whitefield came back to America and would preach throughout the colonies. Jonathan Edwards invited Whitefield to preach in Northampton, Massachusetts. Whitefield’s message resonated with rich and poor, farmers and tradesmen, church-goers and sinners—virtually everyone within earshot of Whitefield, which, according to Ben Franklin, in open space, was 30,000 people!

Whitefield was not alone. Along with Edwards, men like Isaac Backus, David Brainerd, James Davenport, Samuel Davies, Theodore Frelinghuysen, Jonathan Mayhew, Shubal Stearns, the Tennent brothers (Gilbert, John, William), and others implored settlers and Natives alike to trust in Christ and Christ alone for salvation. Their message of repentance caught fire up and down the American East Coast. In the words of Brainerd, the ongoing revival was like an “irresistible force of a mighty torrent or swelling deluge.”

As a result of this first Great Awakening, geographical barriers became no more significant than denominational ones. The country was beginning to unite, in more ways than one. In addition to preaching sin and salvation, the Great Awakening played no small role in helping to unite the American Colonies against the British, for it was in the pulpits of American churches that the seeds of Revolution were sown. The British certainly thought this to be the case, as they blamed what they derisively described as the “Black Robed Regiment” for the thirst in the Colonies for American Independence. Modern historians have noted, “There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.”

For example, in 1750 the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, a Harvard graduate, Congregationalist minister, and pastor of West Church in Boston, published A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. Out of this was born a sermon entitled “The Morning Gun of the American Revolution.” In this, Mayhew uses Romans 13 to justify throwing off the tyrannical yoke of England.

In 1765, Mayhew gave a powerful sermon railing against the evils of King George III’s hated Stamp Act. Mayhew declared,
The king is as much bound by his oath not to infringe on the legal rights of the people, as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows that as soon as the prince sets himself above the law, he loses the king in the tyrant.
According to historian Alice Mary Baldwin, joining Mayhew in leading the opposition to the Stamp Act were the Reverends Andrew Eliot, Charles Chauncey, and Samuel Cooper. George Whitefield accompanied Ben Franklin—whom he had befriended—to Parliament to protest the Act. Franklin revealed to Parliament that Americans would never willingly submit to the Stamp Act. A month later, in March of 1766, celebrating the repeal of the act, Whitefield recorded in his journal, “Stamp Act repealed, Gloria Deo.”

It wasn’t only the ministers of the Great Awakening who were the priestly patriots lighting the fire for the American Revolution. Men like prominent Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon were also instrumental. Witherspoon—a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and president of the College of New Jersey (Princeton)—in 1776, on a national day of prayer and fasting, preached a sermon entitled The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men. The sermon included the following:
There can be no true religion, till there be a discovery of your lost state by nature and practice, and an unfeigned acceptance of Christ Jesus, as he is offered in the gospel. Unhappy are they who either despise his mercy, or are ashamed of his cross. Believe it, “There is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved.”… 
If your cause is just, you may look with confidence to the Lord, and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature.
Witherspoon was a mentor to many of America’s founders and helped to educate many future leaders of the young United States of America. Among his students included James Madison, future U.S. President and “Father of the Constitution,” Aaron Burr, future U.S. Vice President, twelve future Continental Congress members, forty-nine U.S. representatives, twenty-eight senators, three Supreme Court justices, and a secretary of state.

As America’s Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, would later note, “The learned clergy…had great influence in founding the first genuine republican governments ever formed and which, with all the faults and defects of the men and their laws, were the best republican governments on earth.” In other words, “One nation under God” became the political as well as the spiritual legacy of the powerful preaching so prevalent in 18th century America. The ministry of these faithful men not only brought salvation and hope, but also helped bring rise to the greatest nation in the history of humanity.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com